Comments on: BBC Radio 4 on Climategate

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:41:21 +0000

thanks, that is an interesting series of posts!

I hope he gets some more serious feedback soon…. it seems like a very worthy inquiry which should be of interest to many here.

By: J Jackson

J Jackson — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:09:19 +0000

http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-seven/

By: J Jackson

J Jackson — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:32:22 +0000

With still another follow up, and this time providing code for claims made:

http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-five/

By: J Jackson

J Jackson — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:11:05 +0000

as promised, interesting stuff:
http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-four/

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:07:27 +0000

Fascinating, a welcome development. Will Jim Bouldin be accused of receiving checks from evil fossil fuel interests??

By: Michael Painter

Michael Painter — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:56:48 +0000

Very interesting and thanks for posting this. This seems lethal for dendroclimatology as it has been practiced until now. It will be interesting if any dendroclimatologist addresses the points made in this paper or if they ignore Bouldin, who is a certified Real Climate scientist.

By: J Jackson

J Jackson — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:19:45 +0000

Hmmm, a sequel with apparently more to follow:
http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-two/

By: J Jackson

J Jackson — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:48:56 +0000

Interesting criticisms regarding tree ring issues:
http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-1/
Pretty strong comments coming from a RealClimate guy.

By: Gerald Kelleher

Gerald Kelleher — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:32:51 +0000

I am dismayed at the level of personal animosity that was inevitably going to overtake any discussion on climate and especially as ‘climate change’ itself is a misnomer by virtue that the planet’s climate has yet to be defined and determined properly.

We inherit certain prejudices from previous generations and until they are removed decisively it is not possible to discuss climate properly.The Earth has a largely equatorial climate that does not change as planetary climate is defined by the degree of inclination.

The old view of ‘no tilt/no seasons’ must be replaced with the more productive perspective that a planet with zero inclination has an equatorial/temperate climate while a planet, comparable to Uranus,with a 90 degree inclination has a polar climate.This spectrum between polar climate and equatorial climate sets the foundations for our planet’s climate and after that the relevance of inputs can be discussed or disputed.

It was modeling based on frivolous assertions that got this world into so much trouble and alternative modeling is not going to get us out of this mess,a stable astronomical narrative is required in order to even begin modeling and certainly not like the speculative monsters that are driving these doom laden predictions but modeling that affirms proper human interpretation.

By: Barry Woods

Barry Woods — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:06:58 +0000

jones has definately received ugly emails over the years (ie controversial topic)in fact it would be odd if he had received no ugly emails over the years. Some were published following an FOI, if not death threats, definitley threatening. (things is Morano gets similar, just sad fact of life, nutter out there) Watts and Montford, have both published a very strong disguested response to those emails.

Paul Dennis made this point well, in the BBC program