Why do I think it’s possible? I think that because a lot of scientists think it’s possible and I don’t think I know better than them. You clearly do think you know better than them, yet, as far as I’m aware, you haven’t published any relevant science that we can get our teeth into to check your credentials. As I said, criticism is easy, actually producing some new science leaves you open to criticsm – that’s probably why you (?) Steve and the rest never produce anything new.

TCO #32, I think, as often, you are within that area marked ‘broadly right’.

The Lamb view of climate history was largely thrown out because of the supposed quantitative-ness of tree ring reconstructions, as advocated in Hughes and Diaz, 1994, still cited. I’m entitled to examine these quantitative methods. It’s impossible to examine them without finding fault. I’m not “trying” to find faults; they are lying there in plain view.

My background is in math. People can and have pointed out flaws in math proofs from time to time, without themselves being able to prove the theorem. Their inability to themselves prove the theorem doesn’t invalidate their finding the flaws in a supposed proof.

I’d submit that the null hypothesis is that no such reconstruction can be produced.

TBH this place is about finding fault not finding out. While science is, in part, about replicability, it’s also about finding out, about inquiry, about research. Anyone coming here hoping to find out about past climate is going to be very disappointed you, as you’ve oft stated, have no view on that. No one here is doing the hard work of finding out, just the easy bit, finding fault.

Re#26. Ed, I don’t think MBH is correct anymore than I do Moberg 05. Both (and the rest from, and including, Lamb onwards) offer insights into the past and build upon each other. None is correct, otoh, none is wrong (despite all the thousands of harsh words here), none merit being discarded and none are fatally flawed.

RE #23. Peter, while I criticize many of these reconstructions, I make a conscientious effort to see how they work. I don’t simply “insult” them, although, sometimes, merely describing what’s actually going on is pretty demeaning to them. While I occasionally lapse into use of adjectives, mostly I write pretty objectively.

If you see such a claim in comment 21, you might want to visit an eye doctor, soon.

Re 21.

You could quite easily turn that on its head – It is an extraordinary claim that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on global temperature. It requires extraordinary evidence.

You see, you say “For me that evidence isn’t good enough. However, there is plenty of evidence to indicate now is both very warm and historically warm “. This is what much of the evidence produced by Steve on this site deals with, and I think that although that view could be correct, adequate evidence to assert that it is has not been produced. The reconstructions you seem so fond of are not well founded. You believe what you want to believe, fine, but if you post here be prepared to be challenged to introduce supporting data.

For me the words of Steve aren’t the handed down truth. I don’t, as you do, unquestioningly accept that MBH (and all the other recons) are fatally flawed and I wont unless or until the evidence is more convincing than the writings of two Canadians (who’ve nothing constructive to offer as an alternative) and a bunch of their utterly convinced supporters.

For me that evidence isn’t good enough. However, there is plenty of evidence to indicate now is both very warm and historically warm and that the present warming might very well accelerate considerably, and damagingly, this century ‘thanks’ to our activities. Again, you’ll probably deride my view…