[MiNe 109]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:01:41 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:26:22 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:

With your logic drug company testing would be to throw away all the
failed results, dead bodies, and placebo effects and declare the
drug
'safe': we throw away data that doesn't work.

I explained the tree-ring thing in a reply to your wing man: it's
possible the tree-ring data has diverged due to anthropogenic CO2.
The
tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or
so
before that.

Stephen

Note the words "it's possible", not a very definitive point, is it?

Calls for more investigation. Science can be like that.

Quite right. Which means (even setting aside the known frauds in the
'hockey stick' graph, like creating trends from trendless data sets)
one cannot draw the conclusions AGW proponents make about the 'hockey
stick' because we know for a fact the proxy data is unreliable from
1960 on and there's nothing to 'validate' the data against prior to
~1850. You have no way of knowing whether a similar, or even
different, 'divergence' didn't occur elsewhere.

More data is needed for greater confidence, yes.

Almost any degree of 'confidence' would be 'greater' than a process we
know for a fact doesn't work from 1960 to 2010.

But even your meek admission (expecting what you already 'think' is
true will be 'proven' by "more data") means the AGW worshipers
absolutist claims are unsupported.

AWG doesn't depend on what I "think" is true.

Certainly isn't "settled science" when you need "more data," now is
it?

I'm pretty sure that's a bs argument. More data=more confidence seems an
unassailable truism.

Why would we worry about that? Because we know for a fact the data
diverges from 1960 on and we can't explain why.

Actually, there are even more problems and the article you, yourself,
provided suggests the proxy overstates 20'th century warming or, if
one calibrates to 20'th century instrument records (CRU methodology),
understates pre 20th century temperatures.

So now you have one strong possibility (your article) and one
speculative possibility (a known divergence during a 'warm' period
[1960-2010] which we could speculate might happen in 'other' warm
periods) that the MWP was warmer than indicated on the 'hockey stick'.

With the caveat that there may be greater variability among global
regions than previously assumed. Hypothetically, Europe's MWP could be
balanced out by colder colder climate elsewhere.

One can speculate anything but speculation is not evidence nor is it
an explanation.

It can show the limits of your counter-model.

Now, I am not saying that *is* the case but that you CAN NOT KNOW what
AGW worshippers unjustifiably claim are certitudes

Depends.

No, it doesn't "depends." Certitudes do not allow for "depends."

Depends on what you're talking about,

Temperatures and CO2 are both up.

Compared to what, determined how, and what significance is it?

We exited the Little Ice Age. Of course 'temperatures are up' compared
to that. That's why it's not an 'ice age' anymore.

As for CO2 being up, that's debatable. It's 'up' if, like the IPCC,
you throw away 100 years of measurements indicating it was higher than
their whole cloth assumption.

But even if we do, correlation doe not prove causation.

And even if we get that far there's the matter of degree of effect.

The hockey stick is just a
crude representation of general trends.

Then people should not be making such broad, absolutist claims based
on it but it less than 'crude'. It's a reconstruction based on a proxy
that is known to not work in, at least, the 1960-2010 time frame.


Probably explains "hide the decline", he didn't want most of us to
notice that tree-ring data might not be all that accurate.

Since 1960, it isn't.

Which is why they wanted to 'hide' it. That's not science it's
propaganda.

No, it was a valid statistical method to normalize the findings.

You are again just making up things in order to have 'something to
say'. No, it is NOT valid.

So once again: if there's an unexplained divergence after 1960, how do
we know there's not one or more divergences in the prior 1000 years?

Check it against other measurements.

What would you propose to check it against?

Different trees!

And what makes you think the 'different trees' would be any good?

You'd have to look and see.

I'll tell you a 'secret', though. They did try 'different trees', to
some degree, and what they do is discard the ones that don't produce
the desired results. In some cases, that left them with 'one tree' to
make a supposed 'statistical' analysis. In other cases, as I've
previously mentioned, they run a 'special program' that 'reconstructs'
hockey stick trends from trendless data sets.

Now, here's a really good one. In other cases they put some of the
tree ring data in 'upside down' and then argue, when it was discovered
by external investigators, that the 'upside down' data "doesn't
matter."

Think about that for a minute. It does not *matter* if the data is
upside down? What does that say about the data?

There's so much of it one mishandled tree doesn't affect the outcome.

Stephen