Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Taks
from MBH98:
so, where, then, is this linear relationship proved? also, since there is seemingly no proof, how can anyone justify the results when they clearly state the part i've bolded above?
this is the point i was trying to make with pghnative. without a clear exclusion policy based on proven biases, the claim that tree-rings accurately represent temperature is false.
also, you can show all the multi-proxy studies you want fram, but their methodology clearly weights the tree-rings heavier than the other proxies. keep in mind, when we see the "pretty graphs" in all these studies, they are merely the output of the algorithms. the algorithms take the proxies and filter out the noise, weighting some more than others. this is why the tree-rings dominate, and this is the crux of the M&M argument (among other things).
amman and wahl attempted to criticize this but both attempts over at GRL got rejected (known as the "little whopper" at climateaudit). they also reference the LW 11 times in their criticism that was "provisionally accepted" by Climatic Change... we're curious to know if this recent rejection will mean anything.
still, fram, you are unable to explain away the failed r2, btw.
taks
|
You have still not shown anywhere that these tree rings a) are wrong (it is obviously not so that if Mann would turn out to be incorrect, which is still not shown, then all tree ring studies would be incorrect: for that to be true, you have to show that tree rings do not represent temperature changes, which you have so far failed to do), and b) dominate those other studies. Putting some words in
italics isn't enough.
You also know well enough that you can't
"prove" anything in science.
Calling them "pretty graphs" is rather weak as well, and not really a valid scientific objection.
I don't care how they call things or people at Climateaudit, I prefer getting my info from more scientific, objective, and varied sources. I notice you (again) use 'we' to reference a point made there, so I presume you are one of the people behind ClimateAudit? Or who are the we you are talking about otherwise?
And I don't "explain" things "away". I provide evidence for my claims.