Mann’s actions are 180 degrees from Richard Feynman’s dictates on scientific ethics.

I try to use the “tit for 2 tats” style of reaction to ad homs, but since few people are willing to only insult me once, after a bit people have difficulty telling who started it. Of course this site has a bit different focus than a more general site so I tend to throw back what’s thrown to ‘skeptics’ in general and Steve / John A in particular rather than just at me. Likewise you, being clearly identified with the Mann camp, are likely to have blow-back from what they do in addition to your own interpersonal transgressions.

That said, I can, embarrasingly, now see how my comment might be taken in a different way. That was not my intention, and to any who might seen it as such I sincerely apologise.

Who or what is a Persil white?

No, my birth name, David Earl Dardinger is what I use online and have always used either as David Dardinger, Dave Dardinger or DED for short. You could google for my name if you want further information.

Funny how accusing people of lying/fraud/corruption and insulting the intelligence of IPCC scientists doesn’t seem to be to ad hom here though…odd that eh?

Greg, so many contradictory answers. Some sceptics, like Hans (hi Hans), say it can be done, some, you, it can’t. Oh well.

You make it sound like it’s a negative to not chant the same things in lockstep.

Ummm … no. Hans conditions for being able to do a reconstruction are hypothetical. Hans states “It starts with proper data sampling”. Data sampling requirements are defined by the sampling theorem. Tree rings fail to satisfy the theorem (the data points are undersampled and aliased in the time domain). While I was writing this Hans beat me to the spatial domain aliasing problem. In one case were talking about amplitude vs. time, in the other amplitude vs. distance, the math being essentially the same (spatial being a bit more complex since it involves 2 dimensions).

“I’m not sure that climate reconstructions are trying to overturn the laws of physics – not a good parallel imo.”

And what parallel are you referring to? This looks like another one of your strawman arguments.

“Otoh I do think it’s more like you saying you dismiss recons of the geological past.”

I made no comment on those reconstructions. You are changing the subject and building a strawman.

“Perhaps you think the geological record IS open to other interpretations?”

Perhaps I have not looked at those reconstructions in enough detail to develop an informed position. Peter, please try to stay focused on the subject we are addressing.

Peter, when you have a moment, could you check back in on our conversation in “Conflict of Interest #2″