[MiNe 109]

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.

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.

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

Depends. Temperatures and CO2 are both up. The hockey stick is just a
crude representation of general trends.

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.

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!

Stephen