Cyclone Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Tree ring data correlated with temperature redings prior to the 1960s and correlated with other proxies preceding the 1960s. making it a good proxy before the 1960s. How good it is as a proxy and the reasons for the divergence interesting though the debate is, does not affect the conclusions about human influence on global warming because the evidence on temperatures do not rely on them. The other proxies reproduce the same temperature record that the 1998 paper involving tree rings did. If other proxies exist then they could simply be used all the time instead of something so unreliable. I suspect that there is actually nothing wrong with the tree ring proxy either pre or post 1960, the divergence after 1960 is due to the manipulation of the 'real' data that the proxy is being compared to. The scientist who have published reports using the tree ring proxies have been extremely selective of exactly which trees they'd use. They have discarded data they didn't like and deliberately increased the resulting mean temperature. They may as well have just made up a number that they are happy with (ie one that supports their hypothesis). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 There should be no pro and anti camp amongst scientists, they are supposed to be lead by the evidence, not choose the evidence to confirm their pre judgements. And that is the crux of the argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The normal process to avoid the accusation of bias is to release the raw data and let independant parties replicate the research. In this case that has been deliberately not done, and indeed the raw data has been destroyed. We are expected to take it on trust that these individuals aren't manipulating things when the evidence in emails and source code implies that they are doing just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The focus on the 1998 article is irrelevant to the issue though! It is one of a number of papers that give the same results, that use data independent of tree rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The focus on the 1998 article is irrelevant to the issue though! It is one of a number of papers that give the same results, that use data independent of tree rings. If they agree with results that are faked might not they also be faked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 While looking for a news update, I came across this, "Posted: December 11, 2009 12:10 am Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi © 2009 WorldNetDaily Rajendra K. Pachauri NEW YORK – A story emerging out of Britain suggests “follow the money” may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis." http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/payoff-u-n-climate-chief-cashes-in-on-carbon-scheme/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I am reluctant to join in what is very similar to a religous argument on SF. You either believe or you don't. I continue to have an open mind but am saddened by the desire by spokespeople to turn highly possible theory into solid fact. This is then being reiterated by politicians for their own reasons that are not necessarily in our own interest. I have worked with "world leader" modellers in other environmental fields and have seen similar unjustified guarding of databanks and models (often publicly funded). Usually it was to protect their ability to command lucrative contracts as 'experts' in their field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 (edited) If they agree with results that are faked might not they also be faked? There speaks someone that thinks auschwitz was faked. Edited December 11, 2009 by Wildcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The normal process to avoid the accusation of bias is to release the raw data and let independant parties replicate the research. In this case that has been deliberately not done, and indeed the raw data has been destroyed. We are expected to take it on trust that these individuals aren't manipulating things when the evidence in emails and source code implies that they are doing just that. The data is available apart from that that is resticted because of copyright. Get your teeth into this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 If they agree with results that are faked might not they also be faked? Yes it is possible that all the scientists involved in climate research, every govt and all their contractors are involved in a global conspiracy to screw the fossil fuel industry. It does however seem unlikely. Do you have any evidence to suggest this might be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now