Do we generate more CO2 than volcanoes ?

it's a simple issue, the data was deleted from 1950-1999. Doug avoided the issue by windbagging about processing ambiguities, yet you think he gave an explanation. what does that say about your understanding of this issue? It shows I listen to experts. Not all data is equal and the secret of good science is spotting good data from bad. If young tree's represent bad data then don't use them. If there is a known problem with a data series then don't use the data series or compensate in a way recognised as acceptable within the field. That is what Doug said - not windbagging. Here is a nice littl... [More]

Here is a nice little summery of some of the issues with the Michael Mann graph but your complaint is not one of them Because I'm talking about the Briffa-Osborne paper not the Michael Mann graph. and none of your links work.

"When Lindzen was informed during the interview that the first three allegations had already been dismissed at the inquiry stage, his response, as quoted in the Committee’s report, was: “It’s thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering what is going on?” Dr. Lindzen’s bewilderment is understandable. Concerning the Committee’s conclusion regarding the first allegation (suppressing or falsifying data) — characterizing the “trick” to “hide the decline” as legitimate application of a conventional statistical methodology... [More]

The issue is not whether the data has been processed or not. Any kind of processing removes some of the information from the data set. The idea is to remove the noise without losing the underlying signal. The issue is that the data was deleted from 1950-1999. The issue is not whether it was removed, but WHY it was removed. The researcher simply tells what he did and why, then the rest of the world can accept it, or not. did you watch Professor Muller explain this to you? Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Richard A. Muller: Muller obtained an A.B. degree at Columbia University (New York) ... [More]

The issue is not whether it was removed, but WHY it was removed.why it was removed was to hide the decline.The researcher simply tells what he didhe didn't tell us what he did. to find out the data was deleted, a vigilant statistician on his own time and money had to persist with FOIA requests and deal with illegal refusals, childish abuse and accusations. Only after a considerable time did he get the data and reconstruct Briffas work but this time including the data from the file named "DELETED_DATA". It was only then that the world found out what Briffa had done. and why, then the rest of th... [More]

Here is a nice simple well referenced discussion of the divergence issue (or as the denialists hysterically call it "hiding the decline"). http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1215/Climategate-global-warming-and-the-tree-rings-divergence-problem Surprisingly good for the Christian Monitor. Br Cornelius

if tree ring data does not represent actual temperature readings since 1950, then we cannot know they represent past temperature readings. so these treemometers graphs cannot be reliable as reconstructions. this is the whole point about the MWP being erased by the use of tree ring data and giving the false impression that current temperatures are higher than the MWP.

why it was removed was to hide the decline. I have already given several valid reasons for deleting that chronology. Suppose you present some evidence to support your contention. You might try looking at Mann's paper as a starting point. BTW: My weather records for Arkansas/Oklahoma show the same rising pattern as the black curve: a low in 1907, a slight wobble in the early 30s, a subordinate peak in 1950, a local minimum in the late 60s, a sharp rise beginning in 1976 and a flattening out beginning in 1998. Those are drawn from instrumental records, not tree rings. That chronology is used to ... [More]

I have already given several valid reasons for deleting that chronology. what was the reason for deleting the data from 1961-1999? it is not about speculating the reason, it is about the reason. why do you disagree with post 75?

if tree ring data does not represent actual temperature readings since 1950, then we cannot know they represent past temperature readings. so these treemometers graphs cannot be reliable as reconstructions. this is the whole point about the MWP being erased by the use of tree ring data and giving the false impression that current temperatures are higher than the MWP. Now that you have proven that tree rings don't work, you can start on sediment cores. Next you can go to work on speleothems. Then ice cores. Even if you win this minor skirmish, you still lose the war. There are valid reasons to ... [More]