This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Watts up with that has made quite a presentation on tree rings which includes some specialist guest posts and reference to a law that basically says plant growth is limited only by the one ingredient that is in least supply.
So, if we are dealing with trees that are in a particularly arid area (at the time) then it is water and water alone that will influence ring growth.
In another location where everything else is in sufficient supply but where temperature is the critical factor then it will be temperature that influences tree rings.
Quite a bit more about how they analyse tree ring based on C14, density etc. i.e. there are different methods.
Watts Up With That also looks at the "trick" and explains what was done.
Now, it seems to me that many of the skeptics have been very cautious, perhaps out of a desire to be fair, a desire to analyse all the data and not rush to judgement, and, perhaps, a desire not to be sucked into a scam designed to trap the deniers.
Much of the comment has come from bloggers, and of course, Moobat and RC (Michael Man's site I think) have doen a lot of immediate work to try and filter out adverse comments and allow through defenders with the sort of " out of context" remarks.
I would expect that the two main areas for the scientists will be to try and understand the data, the formation of HadCruT which, from Harry_read_me.txt, looks a bit suspect, and the code, such as they have and which may or may not be the genuine code (it depends who released this and why - was it a deliberate attempt to ensnare some deniers? - if so the code could be false, or is it genuine? - in which case the deniers may want to work slowly and steadily - and it will take time anyway- to build a robust assault).
The remaining area is the unscientific behaviour of stuffing peer review boards, blocking publication of deniers, and getting rid of errant editors. Stuff that is reprehensible but which the warmists may say was forced on them to prevent inaccurate and misleading denier articles to damage the real issue of manmade global warming, the end justifies the means.
The bottom line is that if the warmist case is not destroyed by this, then it may, by some strange quirk of the guilty or not guilty thinking, be the justification for finally accepting that AGW is actually true. In other words, increasingly under attack from the growing voice of skeptics and deniers, and the accumulation of evidence against AGW, the way to defend the AGW case is to create a false attack on it doomed to failure and designed to show the deniers as opportunists, and when that attack fails, in the public eye, the case for AGW is proven.
Except in SCotland? There they have a third verdict available to them - "Not Proven." i.e. we do not have to acquit or convict if we think the evidence is not all in.
I'm cross posting this from the George Monbiot thread
I agree with you JMW a leopard never changes it's spots! Moonbat will always be Moonbat!
For a bit of light relief have a look at this web page with a link to a video on YouTube
You've got to love those Minnesotan climate change deniers haven't you?
Also here's some links on the coverage of the leaked emails on Fox News
and on Russia Today
(show interview with Peter Lilley one of only 3 UK MPs not to vote for Ed Milliband's UK Climate Change Bill to be enacted)
Your several requests for enlightenment, analysis, and opinions on AGW antics, are possibly based on some misconceptions concerning the ethos of Numberwatch? As far as I can tell, the Numberwatch web-site is unique: because it doesn't have an 'agenda', (other than the 'pursuit of excellence' in reporting numerical and factual flummery, wherever and whenever it occurs), its Forum is very open-minded, the strife and dissension caused by factions are pleasantly absent, and it has no need for moderation. It is possibly the only site where honest debate can still be found.
Using Disputin's terms, it is bleedin' obvious that AW does not exist in a Global sense, as it is bleedin' obvious that AW only exists in the minds of environmentalists, and AGW only exists in the minds of politicians and bureaucrats. It is also bleedin' obvious that most other 'believers' have very different motivations: 'power and dominion', the 'gravy-train', political expedience, commercial greed, and for much of the public, simply bowing to the effects of Peer Pressure fanned by a corrupt media. The rest are just sacerdotally inclined, (Gore and Obama do have a following)?
So, a question for you? --- How can we, provide rational constructive analysis, or constructive technical comment on the irrational minds of AGW proponents and protagonists? --- We cannot use Science Physics or Chemistry, they don't speak them: we cannot use Logic, they are illogical: we cannot use Hard Data, they just abuse it: and we cannot use Factual Statistics, they abuse them as well! --- If true enlightenment is sought, read Orwell, study Social Engineering, Theology, and good old Political Venality. (We can probably help you on the last one)?
'Hiding The Decline', how prophetic of them! Their own decline is just around the corner; but nothing to do with revelatory squibs about the bleedin' obvious, (chastisement:- Naughty boys, rap rap, don't do it again, please remember to wear your chastity belts in future). --- Here, I have something for all members of the Forum to chew on:-
We well know that this kerfuffle over the CRU's probity will not in any way deter them, (their political masters deal with it all the time), but as the whole bloated edifice of AGW has been financed by the West's imaginary affluence, which was based on 'funny money'; and that money has disappeared back into the sky where it came from (no pun intended), the imaginary pot has been bled dry. The West is broke. AGW is no longer affordable. It is a luxury. (Sorry, imaginary luxury). We see the advanced signs as the smarter politicians, bureaucrats, and media, get the 'boats' ready. --- Who is going to pay them? China? They hold the purse strings now! ---Sinking currencies, sinking economies, sinking productivity, sinking confidence, all now show me that my post of October 08 was wrong, no mere technicality or inconvenient fact will bring about the demise of AGW. I now contend that “The Sinking of AGW” will be achieved through the dead weight of Western Debt.
Many thanks for your detailed reply David.
"we cannot use Logic, they are illogical:"
I would have thought the whole purpose of logic would be to uncover and debunk the illogical.
"To be fair, I haven't found a single detailed analysis of this from the "skeptic" side, anywhere on the web. Can we do better?"
The most detailed analysis I've seen so far of the 'hide the decline' issue from the AGW sceptic side, which also discusses the Real Climate explanation, is this one from the American Thinker website:
Thanks Dave; very useful.
On the subject of illogic:
"Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Here's my take on "Hide the Decline"
* We are told that the tree ring data is a good proxy for temperature
* But the proxy data post 1960 has a trend opposite to temperature records, so much so that the “climate scientists” discard them.
* By doing so they have just falsified their own claim that tree ring data = good proxy for temperature.
* Consequently, all pre-1960 proxy data can be discounted.
Voila - Hockey Stick busted.
This is pretty much what Christopher Monkton says in his summary of the Green debacle:
A very good read.
Monckton's paper is good and comprehensive if guilty of some of the hyperbole we find so distasteful in the AGW crowd (I guess vindication can do that to you), but he really spoils it by talking about world government nonsense on page 1. As a result, I'd be embarrased to distribute it to a number of people I know who could otherwise profit from reading it. There is a genuine conspiracy going on, and the way to expose it is not to out yourself as a whackjob conspiracy theorist.