3 ms·

You seem to be another carrier of the recent disease infecting HN, where users are commenting on articles that they didn't bother reading.

hga 17y ago
Pray tell, how do you know I didn't read it? (In all fairness, I read some, skimmed the rest.)
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  Thanks (sincerely) for being honest about that, at least. There were two clues: one, your comment timestamp was not far removed from the time that the article was posted. I read pretty quickly, but it still took me some time to fully read and digest the entire article. Second, there was your statement: "their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature". The article specifically mentioned that tree-ring data correlated with other proxies for temperature measurements, as well as going into other details (like the difference between measuring ring thickness and ring density, and the fact that there has only somewhat recently been a divergence between the measurements). Basically, the article answered your statement, I think.
  - hga 17y ago
    No, it doesn't answer why they felt they had to "hide the decline" instead of discussing and justifying how the recent divergence is congruent with their claims of its usefulness as a proxy when there were no (accurate) temperature readings. These are not the actions of honest men.
    - ugh 17y ago
      Well, they discussed it. In public. In peer reviewed journals. You know, this mail is not the only place where climate scientists talked about tree rings.
      - hga 17y ago
        In peer reviewed journals that they kept free of not just "deniers" but anyone who wasn't as fervent as they. One journal was excommunicated (my phrase) until half the editors resigned. For another that was "too important to lose" (direct quote (or rather paraphrase, see below) from memory) they applied enough pressure that the offending editor resigned. Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the release of the CRUtape Letters, but not after.
        ugh 17y ago
        This is a joke, right? And the upvote, too.
        hga 17y ago
        As a scientist (who was forced into a sordid life of programming :-) I wish it was. From the horse's mouth: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filen... refers to the first incident while talking about the second (search for "It's one thing to lose"). And for another telling quote, see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... where Phil Jones says "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" Pielke, BTW, is not a denier, he just doesn't agree with the CRU crowd on various details.
        ugh 17y ago
        I know those mails and don’t see the scandal. That’s why I believe you were and must be joking.
      - jacoblyles 17y ago
        So policy makers get the dishonest graph unless they have the wherewithal to dig through the references at the back? I don't trust my representatives that much.

hga 17y ago

Pray tell, how do you know I didn't read it? (In all fairness, I read some, skimmed the rest.)

thaumaturgy 17y ago
Thanks (sincerely) for being honest about that, at least. There were two clues: one, your comment timestamp was not far removed from the time that the article was posted. I read pretty quickly, but it still took me some time to fully read and digest the entire article. Second, there was your statement: "their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature". The article specifically mentioned that tree-ring data correlated with other proxies for temperature measurements, as well as going into other details (like the difference between measuring ring thickness and ring density, and the fact that there has only somewhat recently been a divergence between the measurements). Basically, the article answered your statement, I think.
- hga 17y ago
  No, it doesn't answer why they felt they had to "hide the decline" instead of discussing and justifying how the recent divergence is congruent with their claims of its usefulness as a proxy when there were no (accurate) temperature readings. These are not the actions of honest men.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Well, they discussed it. In public. In peer reviewed journals. You know, this mail is not the only place where climate scientists talked about tree rings.
    - hga 17y ago
      In peer reviewed journals that they kept free of not just "deniers" but anyone who wasn't as fervent as they. One journal was excommunicated (my phrase) until half the editors resigned. For another that was "too important to lose" (direct quote (or rather paraphrase, see below) from memory) they applied enough pressure that the offending editor resigned. Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the release of the CRUtape Letters, but not after.
      - ugh 17y ago
        This is a joke, right? And the upvote, too.
        hga 17y ago
        As a scientist (who was forced into a sordid life of programming :-) I wish it was. From the horse's mouth: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filen... refers to the first incident while talking about the second (search for "It's one thing to lose"). And for another telling quote, see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... where Phil Jones says "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !" Pielke, BTW, is not a denier, he just doesn't agree with the CRU crowd on various details.
        ugh 17y ago
        I know those mails and don’t see the scandal. That’s why I believe you were and must be joking.
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      So policy makers get the dishonest graph unless they have the wherewithal to dig through the references at the back? I don't trust my representatives that much.