[MiNe 109]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:15:13 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:15:16 -0600, 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.

A "possibility" is not an "explanation" and the 'odds' are not
affected by you wishing it were so.

There's also higher UV-B.

More speculation. Have any idea whether it affects tree rings and, if
so, whether they get large or smaller, or what?

From what I've read, the tree rings aren't getting as big as expected.

'Possibilities' and speculations are not explanations.

I'm not 'wishing' BTW.

I was being generous when all indications are you're 'sure you know'
even with the lack of evidence.

I an not educated enough to second-guess the statistics involved. My
bias is in favor of the peer-review scientific process.

The
tree-rings have been shown to be accurate for the last millenium or so
before that.

Now you're making things up for no other reason than you wish it were
so.

There's a whole page of references at the end of "Trees tell of past
climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?"

I read that one a while back.


Take it up with Briffa, Schweingruber, et al. Be careful not to read the
discussion by accident.

Stephen