The current decade is the warmest on record

[Patranus]

IF we had that type of raw data then my attitude would probably be different but we don't. We have tree rings and ice cores and I "think" they extrapolate temps from the CO2 present in them. That means there is some sort of correlation between CO2 and temps, right? How the hell am I supposed to know if all of that crap is correct or not yet I am supposed to leap to other conclusions based on it?

The sad thing is that the scientists don't have the raw temperature data from the 1980 thanks to the CRU.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Evolution scientists have falsified data before. Practically every field has. But you don't see significant numbers of credible scientists denying evolution. Same with MMGW scientists. If you were to deny MMGW you'd have to have significant standing, but it's rare. Not as rare as scientists that deny evolution, but rare nonetheless.

Except in this case it's not a single rogue scientist falsifying data, it's an entire group doing it. What's more, it's one of the most preeminent AGW groups doing it.

All I want is the facts and the truth of the matter. I have no dog in this fight and I'm not one bit vested in whether man is or is not causing climate change. However, before we act, don't you think it would be wise to know for sure if we actually are the cause of this? If current climate change is due more to natural causes than man-made ones, we'd be absolute idiots to throw billions, if not trillions of dollars at the problem. Some in here make it sound like the science on the issue is already settled. It is not, not by a longshot

 

[CycloWizard]

What's so difficult about looking at temperature trends?

You make it out to be this big obscure process, when it's really just comparing numbers. Is this number higher or lower than that number?

If it is any more complex than that, then they aren't telling you the truth. If the raw data doesn't show warming, then there is no warming. However, we don't have the raw data because the CRU refuses to let anyone see anything other than their "adjusted" data, which we now know for fact has been tampered with.

If the data needs to be tampered with to show a certain conclusion, that conclusion is false. If plotting the points on a graph and reading the trend of that graph isn't adequate, then the "science" involved must not be real.

I'm afraid it's people like you that he was talking about. You don't know the difference between raw and reduced variables. Therefore, you think that data analysis, statistical analysis, and fudging numbers are one and the same. You don't understand that there are many, many ways to measure temperature in one spot, let alone estimate the average atmospheric temperature of the entire planet. Therefore, you feel that everything is black or white, simple or fraud.

 

[BladeVenom]

Man made global warming is about as scientific as the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[shira]

Its getting colder... its getting warmer... its getting colder.... now its getting warmer again.

Will someone make up their damn minds please. This back and forth crap is getting old.

The climate-deniers are saying it's getting cooler. No one else is.

But even if climatologists found cooling trends in some studies, how would that be any different from the cacophony of studies that - for example - find coffee is beneficial or harmful or has no effect? Or studies that recommend fewer mammograms and those that recommend the status quo?

The fact that there's an overwhelming consensus on ACC taken as a whole does NOT mean that there's a huge consensus (or any consensus at all) on any particular area of climatology.

I apologize for the fact that science is messy. I apologize for the fact that climatologists don't already understand everything about climate and probably never will. Science continually pushes back the darkness, but the darkness is will always be there.

 

[drebo]

I'm afraid it's people like you that he was talking about. You don't know the difference between raw and reduced variables. Therefore, you think that data analysis, statistical analysis, and fudging numbers are one and the same. You don't understand that there are many, many ways to measure temperature in one spot, let alone estimate the average atmospheric temperature of the entire planet. Therefore, you feel that everything is black or white, simple or fraud.

The temperature in one spot should be the same whether measured with a mercury thermometer, a water thermometer, a digital thermometer, a bimetallic strip, or a satellite. If it takes "statistical analysis" to measure a temperature, you're doing it wrong.

Or, you're obfuscating the process and data to the point where you don't WANT people to know what the temperature really is.

The plain fact is that we don't know, because the "scientists" that are producing the models that show warming or climate change refuse to release the raw data sets or the processes used to "adjust" them. Additionally, they all conclude that such change would be catastrophic, something they cannot prove or provide historic figures that correlate to their conclusions.

I will not let blind fanatacism dictate domestic or global policy. Remember, it's not the skeptics that want the government to get involved.

 

[drebo]

But even if climatologists found cooling trends in some studies, how would that be any different from the cacophony of studies that - for example - find coffee is beneficial or harmful or has no effect? Or studies that recommend fewer mammograms and those that recommend the status quo?

Now you're touching the real issue: Scientists will say whatever it is the people who are paying them want them to say.

 

[shira]

Except in this case it's not a single rogue scientist falsifying data, it's an entire group doing it. What's more, it's one of the most preeminent AGW groups doing it.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In a previous ATPN thread, the climate deniers accused NISS of falsifying climate data because NISS did NOT identify and delete from their data set duplicated data that was erroneously sent to them by an external group

Now, the same circle-jerkers are accusing CRU of falsifying data because CRU DID exclude from their data set post-1960 tree-ring proxy data that prior research has shown to to be erroneous.

The climate-denial crowd wants to have it both ways.

In fact, there's not a shred of evidence demonstrating that there's any falsifying going on at all. But the deniers think if they yell loudly enough they can get someone to listen to them.

 

[Darwin333]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In a previous ATPN thread, the climate deniers accused NISS of falsifying climate data because NISS did NOT identify and delete from their data set duplicated data that was erroneously sent to them by an external group

Now, the same circle-jerkers are accusing CRU of falsifying data because CRU DID exclude from their data set post-1960 tree-ring proxy data that prior research has shown to to be erroneous.

The climate-denial crowd wants to have it both ways.

In fact, there's not a shred of evidence demonstrating that there's any falsifying going on at all. But the deniers think if they yell loudly enough they can get someone to listen to them.

What about the claim that they don't have access to the original data. Wasn't it somehow destroyed or something? Is it possible to now verify the results without the original data?

 

[bfdd]

Except in this case it's not a single rogue scientist falsifying data, it's an entire group doing it. What's more, it's one of the most preeminent AGW groups doing it.

All I want is the facts and the truth of the matter. I have no dog in this fight and I'm not one bit vested in whether man is or is not causing climate change. However, before we act, don't you think it would be wise to know for sure if we actually are the cause of this? If current climate change is due more to natural causes than man-made ones, we'd be absolute idiots to throw billions, if not trillions of dollars at the problem. Some in here make it sound like the science on the issue is already settled. It is not, not by a longshot

This and as long as there is fraud and fudging of numbers I will not agree with spending money to try and fix a "problem" that might not exist.

 

[dainthomas]

Evolution scientists have falsified data before. Practically every field has. But you don't see significant numbers of credible scientists denying evolution. Same with MMGW scientists. If you were to deny MMGW you'd have to have significant standing, but it's rare. Not as rare as scientists that deny evolution, but rare nonetheless.

Probably because evolution can be seen over several months or years as bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics (among other examples). It's much harder to prove that the barely 1 degree F global increase over the last 100+ years is predominantly caused by carbon dioxide. It's even tougher to buy the theory that 1 degree over 100 years is going to become 8-9 over the next 50 (or whatever the number is this week) if we don't all start buying carbon credits.

 

[werepossum]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In a previous ATPN thread, the climate deniers accused NISS of falsifying climate data because NISS did NOT identify and delete from their data set duplicated data that was erroneously sent to them by an external group

Now, the same circle-jerkers are accusing CRU of falsifying data because CRU DID exclude from their data set post-1960 tree-ring proxy data that prior research has shown to to be erroneous.

The climate-denial crowd wants to have it both ways.

In fact, there's not a shred of evidence demonstrating that there's any falsifying going on at all. But the deniers think if they yell loudly enough they can get someone to listen to them.

Hmm, we can't delete duplicate data and we can't substitute data - but the science is still settled, right?

To cover your most egregious lie here, CRU did NOT exclude data that prior research had shown to be erroneous. Rather, they substituted actual measurements where the proxy data could be tested and did not conform with direct measurements, while insisting that where the proxy data could not be tested against direct measurements they were still valid. There is a world of difference in those two things.

As an example, suppose I posit that the amount of iron in oak gall ink is a valid proxy for temperature and thus with a few dozen documents I can recreate the temperature of the past ten centuries. I measure the iron content in my ink samples and check that against actual recorded temperatures for the last hundred years, then develop equations which relate my measured iron content to known temperatures. I compare my equations to the measured temperatures, thus calibrating my equations until they match. (Known time of year, perceived and quantified darkness of ink, and my guess at time of day would be reasonable equivalents of Mann's assumption, I think.) However over a big section my data do not fit the measured temperatures. So instead I substitute the actual measured temperatures where my data don't fit, whilst giving them impression that this lovely graph is generated from my data. Furthermore, even though I now know that my proxy data do not track the actual temperature - remember, I am the one who substituted the actual measurements for this very reason - I act as though they do. I project temperatures back a millennium even though I know my proxy data do not work. I make a lovely graph - after all, there are no actual measurements to gainsay me in the projection range - and I declare the science settled.

But that's not enough, because competent scientists (of any training, not just in climate or in ink composition) can easily prove my theory does not hold up, that my work is not good science. So I must conspire with other like-minded scientists to make sure only like-minded scientists review my work, make sure that my detractors are attacked and discredited. I declare my raw data and my equations off-limits, intellectual property. That in itself makes any peer review a joke because my work is completely unreproducible; not even my math can be checked, much less my data or the methodology by which I attained them. In fact, if anyone gets too close to the truth, I delete the raw data so that no one can show my fraud. This is great because the longer I keep this going and the more scientists I can involve, the less scrutiny my claims get and the more easily I can discredit my opponents. Other scientists studying the same thing can expect their data, methodology, and integrity to be attacked if they disagree. But if their findings match mine, why then they too can enjoy the same casual level of scrutiny. Instant gravitas! But unfortunately, all this is down in email. One dedicated hacker, or perhaps one insider with a conscious, has undone all my planning; my iron-measuring proxy system is in shambles.

This is Piltdown man writ large, a massive hoax by which many scientists have raised themselves to respected and lucrative positions by simple conspiracy. No one caught engaging in this level of fraud should be accorded any respect whatsoever. The idea that all their other work still stands is ludicrous; they refuse to show raw data and equations, and having once been caught in fraud even their raw data should have no provenance unless it can be reproduced or verified through another source. CRU, like Mann and Hansen's crew, at this point need extraordinary proof and complete transparency to make any claim whatsoever at this point.

 

[bob4432]

none of this climate situation is decided by science in regards to the whole scheme of things, it is strictly about the money - follow the money and you will find the outcome. if more money was made by doing nothing, regardless if there is or not a man-made contribution, then "our leaders" would do nothing, but since billions or trillions are to be made then "our leaders" will do something about it. again, it has nothing to do w/ science but all to do w/ $$$.

find associations w/ people behind the CCX - http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/index.jsf and you will see what the science will say.

i have no issues w/ living in a responsible manner (how i have lived my whole life, not just now, kind of part of doing what is right) and doing my part, but many of the "leaders" that are pushing are hardly doing their part to curb such problems, more that they are contributing more than their share of it.

again, just follow the money, that is what it is always about.

 

[CycloWizard]

The temperature in one spot should be the same whether measured with a mercury thermometer, a water thermometer, a digital thermometer, a bimetallic strip, or a satellite. If it takes "statistical analysis" to measure a temperature, you're doing it wrong.

Or, you're obfuscating the process and data to the point where you don't WANT people to know what the temperature really is.

I never said it took statistical analysis to measure temperature, but nice attempt at taking a "quote" out of context. There are many, many ways to measure temperature, many of which can give different results depending on a variety of conditions. But you are obviously an expert, so we'll skip all that.

The plain fact is that we don't know, because the "scientists" that are producing the models that show warming or climate change refuse to release the raw data sets or the processes used to "adjust" them. Additionally, they all conclude that such change would be catastrophic, something they cannot prove or provide historic figures that correlate to their conclusions.

The models are published in great detail in the literature. The problem is that you don't understand what they did, so to you it's as if they are unavailable. Models are constructed in the same way as a logical argument. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with this process, I'll walk you through it:
1. Select axioms/assumptions on which you will base your argument/model.
2. Select facts/data which give insight into how the system behaves.
3. Apply logical/mathematical reasoning to lead you towards your conclusions.

Assuming that the logical/mathematical approach is correct, the conclusions are dependent only on the underlying suppositions and parameters: one need not have empirical proof that the model is predicting reality. There are methods by which this may be done to improve parameter estimation (i.e. "bootstrapping"), but that's well beyond the scope of this discussion. If future observations disagree with the predictions of the model, then these observations may be used to inform steps #1-2 in future modeling efforts.

So, the basic form of your argument is as follows:
1. You assume that the models are based on data which has been manipulated to support a given conclusion.
2. You have some anecdotal evidence which supports this axiom under some limited circumstances.
3. You therefore decide that all conclusions of all such models are false.
Unfortunately, this entire "argument is simply a version of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well," and is therefore invalid.

I will not let blind fanatacism dictate domestic or global policy. Remember, it's not the skeptics that want the government to get involved.

You are equally fanatical. The only difference is that your fanaticism is in the opposite direction.

 

[werepossum]

I never said it took statistical analysis to measure temperature, but nice attempt at taking a "quote" out of context. There are many, many ways to measure temperature, many of which can give different results depending on a variety of conditions. But you are obviously an expert, so we'll skip all that.

This is simply a lie. The models are published in great detail in the literature. The problem is that you don't understand what they did, so to you it's as if they are unavailable. Models are constructed in the same way as a logical argument. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with this process, I'll walk you through it:
1. Select axioms/assumptions on which you will base your argument/model.
2. Select facts/data which give insight into how the system behaves.
3. Apply logical/mathematical reasoning to lead you towards your conclusions.

Assuming that the logical/mathematical approach is correct, the conclusions are dependent only on the underlying suppositions and parameters: one need not have empirical proof that the model is predicting reality. There are methods by which this may be done to improve parameter estimation (i.e. "bootstrapping"), but that's well beyond the scope of this discussion. So, the basic form of your argument is as follows:
1. You assume that the models are based on data which has been manipulated to support a given conclusion.
2. You have some anecdotal evidence which supports this axiom under some limited circumstances.
3. You therefore decide that all conclusions of all such models are false.
Unfortunately, this entire "argument is simply a version of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well," and is therefore invalid.

You are equally fanatical. The only difference is that your fanaticism is in the opposite direction.

He might also decide that all such models are false because they don't work. Long-term climate is the integral of short-term climate, and no model yet has been able to predict climate on even a yearly basis. Predicting things after they happen is not prediction, it is reporting. A decade of predicting climate would convince most of us that finally someone actually understood and had modeled the Earth's climate system, even though statistically that is not a significant time period. Saying that a model works but only for periods too long to verify is not justification for making or changing policy.

All models can be made to successfully predict things that have already happened.

 

[First]

Except in this case it's not a single rogue scientist falsifying data, it's an entire group doing it. What's more, it's one of the most preeminent AGW groups doing it.

Huh? What are you referring to, that one email that says a guy made a graph look more convincing with his given data points (which is unethical without question but happens frequently unfortunately and has zero to do with 99% of the data collected on MMGW btw)? And how is it that every other group has already confirmed this data including independent scientists at JPL/NASA? Conspiracy?

All I want is the facts and the truth of the matter. I have no dog in this fight and I'm not one bit vested in whether man is or is not causing climate change. However, before we act, don't you think it would be wise to know for sure if we actually are the cause of this? If current climate change is due more to natural causes than man-made ones, we'd be absolute idiots to throw billions, if not trillions of dollars at the problem. Some in here make it sound like the science on the issue is already settled. It is not, not by a longshot

Yeah, it really is. The likelihood of it not being MMGW is small at this point, and the two absolute worst case scenarios are the following; if we try to stop it and it's not real, we waste billions or maybe trillions and enter an economic depression, perhaps spreading across the globe crippling growth on the order of the 1930's or worse. If we don't try to stop it and it is real, significant portions of 3rd world civilizations die of starvation, there are massive food shortages, and whole species die out. To say with a straight face that the science isn't settled as if that's even the criteria in the first place is just ignorant postering. The science could be 60% or 70% or 80% settled and you'd be stupid not to invest billions upon billions to fight it. If you think the former worst case scenario is more likely you have to present your data and explain why a supermajority of scientists have decided to collude over something like this.

 

[CycloWizard]

He might also decide that all such models are false because they don't work.

He might have decided that, but that's not what he stated as his conclusion, so why would you think that?

Long-term climate is the integral of short-term climate, and no model yet has been able to predict climate on even a yearly basis. Predicting things after they happen is not prediction, it is reporting. A decade of predicting climate would convince most of us that finally someone actually understood and had modeled the Earth's climate system, even though statistically that is not a significant time period. Saying that a model works but only for periods too long to verify is not justification for making or changing policy.

Predicting things after they have happened is a prediction, as long as it is done by a mechanistic model which predicts why it happened. I have published three models in the last year, all of which have attempted to predict (with varying degrees of success) data published in 2005. No, my models aren't related to climate change, but they follow the same principles as all model building. As for the rest of your diatribe, I never said anything about whether I believe the results of these climate models or not. I only entered into the discussion to point out the misinformation and fallacy employed herein, starting with the OP.

All models can be made to successfully predict things that have already happened.

Wrong. Correlation-based predictive approaches can always be made to predict what has already happened. Mechanistic models, on the other hand, cannot.

 

[shira]

Hmm, we can't delete duplicate data and we can't substitute data - but the science is still settled, right?

To cover your most egregious lie here, CRU did NOT exclude data that prior research had shown to be erroneous. Rather, they substituted actual measurements where the proxy data could be tested and did not conform with direct measurements, while insisting that where the proxy data could not be tested against direct measurements they were still valid. There is a world of difference in those two things.

(snip)

This is Piltdown man writ large, a massive hoax
.
.
.

I think you're rather confused.

Try reading the lucid explanation on the following website:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php

I just happen to have at hand a brand new textbook on the very subject at hand. It's called Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present, by Thomas M. Cronin of Georgetown University, Columbia University Press, 2009. ( I have no idea why the CUP folks decided I would be an appropriate reviewer deserving a free copy of $95 textbook, but I haven't bought a book with my own money in more than four years thanks to this blogging gig and I'm happy to accept this one, too.)

As has been pointed out numerous times, nothing in the stolen emails and other documents that found their way onto the Internet last week in any way challenges the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But a lot of the material does deal with one particular subfield of climatology, dendrochronology, the science of which appears to confuse just about everyone who doesn't study the subject for a living.

I'm no expert, but Cronin is, and on page 312 he address the very issue that has so many amateurs puzzled. Specifically, what do climatologists mean when they write about "hiding the decline" in tree-ring proxies? It sounds bad, but it really isn't. The Real Climate gang explained it, and rather well I think. But many remain unconvinced. So let's turn to the text, specifically the section titled "Proxy limitations -- Divergence and Segment Length Curse," shall we?

... no tree ring-based reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperatures that includes the 1990s is able to capture the range of late 20th century warming seen in the instrumental records. This means that instrumental records show warming, but reconstructed temperatures from trees show cooling or no change.

That excerpt appears immediately above a graph that shows how temperatures inferred from tree-ring records since about 1850 (the "proxies") are a pretty good match for actual temperature records derived from thermometers right up until the 1980s. After that, the tree-ring data begin to show lower temperatures than were actually recorded.

Just why tree rings no longer provide useful proxy data for temperatures is not known. There are several theories, many of which suggest that climate change itself is the problem. Trees no longer grow as they once did before the climate started changing so rapidly. But the point is, there is no question that tree-ring growth rates of the past -- before we had thermometers -- can serve as useful proxies for historical temperature data. They are much less useful now, but that doesn't matter so much because we have actual temperature records. All of this was sorted out back in 1998. It's not new, nor even particularly interesting, to anyone familiar with the science.

This is why those working with tree-ring data want to "hide" the decline in recent decades; they know the data aren't useful. Perpetual thorn-in-the-side-of-actual-climatologists Steve McIntyre fails to grasp this simple issue when he questions the usefulness of dendrochronology data to support global warming models. And so, it would appear, do a large number of climate change pseudoskeptics who remain convinced the stolen emails paint a picture of scientists trying to obfuscate or distort climate records.

Incidentally, in case anyone wants to suggest that Cronin is somehow complicit in the alleged coverup, the author repeatedly takes great pains in his text not to come across as a climate change alarmist. I would say he actually goes too far in the opposite direction. In one section he even wastes a quarter of a page discussing the controversial 2003 paper in Climate Research by Soon and Baliunas that convinced half the journal's editorial board to resign in protest over a failure of the peer-review process. The very paper and journal that some of the stolen emails discussed in a manner that led many of the pseudoskeptics to conclude mistakenly that there was a coordinated attempts at scientific journal censorship.

No one takes Soon and Baliunas seriously in climatology circles, and Cronin does point out the serious flaws in their paper, which tried to argue that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." But by including the paper, even as an example of flawed analysis, in a textbook, he's probably doing them a favor they don't deserve.

Tree rings aren't being used for current temperature measurement, because in modern times we have direct measurements and we don't need tree-rings as proxies. Contemporary warming trends being reported are based on ACTUAL measurements, not proxies. Warming from 1850 to about 1960 is based on proxies THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE ACCURATE. EVERYONE who has a decent understanding of climatology knows there's no fraud here. ANYONE who takes the time to read and understand the science will come to the same conclusion.

Now, take a deep breath and start educating yourself.

 

[PJABBER]

Proxies are substitutes. Tree ring data is found unreliable with unexplained anomalies since 1960, right? Validated data through proxies is available from 1850 to the present but the data from earlier periods is still derived from the tree ring data that we can expect will also contain anomalies, possibly of the same but unknown type that affects the recent record. Meaning the whole of the record and all of the work derived from tree ring data needs to be scrapped. Was that done?

Tree ring development could be affected by solar activity, volcanic eruption, drought, flood, alleuvial plain shifts, a whole host of influences. The scientists have no way of knowing how valid any interpretation is unless they can source a corroborating and thus validating source of data. But they are left with only a single tree to stake their claim.

 

[bfdd]

Yes Shira, you are right no one is doubting the data collected from cherry picked tree rings. To you guys saying we should use the weighted data to try and make a conclusion are fucking ridiculous. They won't release the method for weighting the data and they no longer have the raw data so no one can even use either of those to try and come up with your own results.

Also, First really? NASA?

 

[Fenixgoon]

since our record keeping began ~150yrs ago, perhaps. of course, the earth has been warmer before if all these studies are to be believed...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2030791

from your quote of the article:
"Global average temperatures during the mid-Pliocene were about 3°C (5.5°F) greater than today and within the range projected for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Therefore it may be one of the closest analogs in helping to understand Earth’s current and future conditions."

 

[silverpig]

The temperature in one spot should be the same whether measured with a mercury thermometer, a water thermometer, a digital thermometer, a bimetallic strip, or a satellite. If it takes "statistical analysis" to measure a temperature, you're doing it wrong.

Or, you're obfuscating the process and data to the point where you don't WANT people to know what the temperature really is.

The plain fact is that we don't know, because the "scientists" that are producing the models that show warming or climate change refuse to release the raw data sets or the processes used to "adjust" them. Additionally, they all conclude that such change would be catastrophic, something they cannot prove or provide historic figures that correlate to their conclusions.

I will not let blind fanatacism dictate domestic or global policy. Remember, it's not the skeptics that want the government to get involved.

Actually, I'd argue that it is entirely statistical analysis and has pretty much nothing to do with climatology once you have the raw data.

Let's say there are two regions, A and B of equal size. Now let's say that the temperature over the past 100 years has risen by 0.5C in region A and dropped by 0.5C in region B over that time. The average change is 0.

However, if A is populated and B is not, then there might be 100 temperature stations in A and only 5 stations in B. Thus, a raw average will show a rise in average temperature due to this sampling bias. So yeah, it's pretty much all statistics at this point.

 

[silverpig]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In a previous ATPN thread, the climate deniers accused NISS of falsifying climate data because NISS did NOT identify and delete from their data set duplicated data that was erroneously sent to them by an external group

Now, the same circle-jerkers are accusing CRU of falsifying data because CRU DID exclude from their data set post-1960 tree-ring proxy data that prior research has shown to to be erroneous.

The climate-denial crowd wants to have it both ways.

In fact, there's not a shred of evidence demonstrating that there's any falsifying going on at all. But the deniers think if they yell loudly enough they can get someone to listen to them.

The problem with the tree-ring data is they used it pre-1960 when it agreed with what they wanted to say, then when 1960 came around and the tree-ring data showed a decline in temperature while the thermometers showed a rise, they stopped displaying the tree-ring data.

The issue then becomes this: If the tree-ring data is crap post-1960, why can they call it good pre-1960? Full disclosure would prompt them to show the tree-ring data on the same graph as the air data so as to show possible errors.

 

[fskimospy]

Shira, I hate to tell you but you're wasting your time. I mean there are some reasonable people on here about this, but look at the sorts of comments that most make. What's the point? You really think you can dent that level of ideological blindness?

 

[silverpig]

I think you're rather confused.
Tree rings aren't being used for current temperature measurement, because in modern times we have direct measurements and we don't need tree-rings as proxies. Contemporary warming trends being reported are based on ACTUAL measurements, not proxies. Warming from 1850 to about 1960 is based on proxies THAT ARE KNOWN TO BE ACCURATE. EVERYONE who has a decent understanding of climatology knows there's no fraud here. ANYONE who takes the time to read and understand the science will come to the same conclusion.

Now, take a deep breath and start educating yourself.

HUGE logic fail here. Either your proxies are accurate or they're not. If anything, they should be MORE accurate post-1960 as you have better thermometer data to check against. You can't just wave your hand and say "global warming did it" when your calibration goes tits up.