Comments on: More on PCs

By: kim

kim — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 12:43:26 +0000

Well, I’m sure I learned it in 3rd grade. We had a great teacher and learned a lot. I distinctly remember how enthralled I was at the idea that a sturdy, silent tree could pass on the information garnered through its whole life and held fast in its heart.
==============================================

By: Harry G

Harry G — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 11:31:37 +0000

oh dear

Peter H has joined this line. Generally whenever Peter H joins I switch off and look at the newer blog lines for new discussions. Peter H’s interlocution generally means the beginning of claims of ad hominens and other nasty contributions, so generally as a rule I switch off (sign off) and go elswhere.

However on this occsaion I volunteer the following to Peter H.

The reason jae (no 32) “SHOUTED” was because nobody has bothered to answer the question or even made an attempt to answer the question over a very long time.

Peter, perhaps you could use your influence to get somebody to answer the question. It would be very helpful to the discussion.

Best wishes

Harry G (from down under – bloody cold this summer no sign at all of AGW in my Olive Grove)

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:31:34 +0000

Re #32 Now that’s a real scientific, reasoned, rational post, if I ever saw one – not.

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:28:39 +0000

Jae,
It’s not polite to “shout” in blogs!

I think Dano’s poor analysis in #19 suggests that he may also lack any detailed knowledge of the underpinnings of the temperaturetree ring relationship.

By: jae

jae — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 06:00:04 +0000

ONCE AGAIN I CRY OUT TO THE “DENDROCLIMATOLOGISTS,” WHERE THE HELL IS THE PROOF THAT TREE GROWTH IS LINEARLY RELATED TO TEMPERATURE? YOUR WHOLE DAMN DISCIPLINE DEPENDS ON THIS RELATIONSHIP, AND IT DOESN’T APPEAR THAT YOU HAVE ANY FRIGGING CLUE! WHY DOESN’T ANYONE ADDRESS THIS TOPIC? DANO, YOU PORTRAY YOURSELF AS THE GURU OF TREE RINGS; WHAT YOU SAY, BOY?

By: Bob K

Bob K — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:49:55 +0000

For the umpteenth mention on this site. No reconstruction was made. See Steve’s #27

Myself, I’d call it a mathematical deconstruction. But Steve is probably trying to state it as accuarately as he feels comfortable with.

By: jae

jae — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:44:53 +0000

Alas, what Dano says in his typically obnoxious way in #19 is probably correct, at least for the short run. Correct but not right. It’s the steam-roller effect, inertia generated during the last few years by blow-hard alarmists (many of whom are the scientists, themselves!) citing the poor science generated at some public institutions (like the Hokey Stick). Anyway, I am convinced that there is still not enough scientific proof of AGW to be formulating and implementing expensive “fixes.” Ironically, as Lomborg points out, any “fixes” will probably cause more harm than ignoring the issue. I think it is quite likely that the AGW “scare” is just another event that keeps the money flowing to the “scarers,” like the formaldehyde scare, Alar scare, etc., etc., etc. And like those events, the truth will eventually emerge.

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:38:29 +0000

Steve, I’ve commented a bit on the inkstain blog about “your reconstruction”. I’m a lot more interested in your take on the work itself first, (far) second on the issue of how independant the different reconstructions are (I imagine the “your reconstruction” has a lot of commonality with MBH) and then thirdly with the implied PR problem that someone will find fault in “your reconstruction” even though you did it as a variant of MBH (to show an effect) not as a reconstruction.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:20:05 +0000

The US, in its infinite wisdom, is now setting up a Senate panel to discuss mandatory regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. It seems we will also need to suffer before seeing the light not unlike the EU.

As to your last comment (re #26), doubtful. Even the most supportive of Kyoto realize that it cannot do anything significant even if they meet their targets. The costs are staggering. Perhaps when the downward trend in the actual record begins, correlating with decreased solar activity, we will finally be able to say “I told you so.” Unfortunately, it is my opinion that we will be so far down the road to bankruptcy by then it will no longer matter.

Mark

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:19:57 +0000

I’ll post up something on Rybski et al. by itself. It gets frustrating when to endlessly have people proclaim MBH without bristlecones as the “MM reconstruction”. I categorically told vS that we did not provide an alternative reconstruction when I gave him the url for the dataset.