One thing I can summarize out of his blog that is fairly useful is the "hide the decline" issue. They threw out tree ring data after 1960 because it disagreed with temperature measurement data from post 1960. The problem with the tree ring data is that the rings may be thicker or thinner for more than one reason, not just because of temperature variations.
The issue, then, is that if you are saying tree ring data is not a reliable gauge of temperature information, you can't use it and you have to throw out all of it - not just the 1960 portion. But they didn't do that because it would cast doubt on the accuracy of all of the research pre-1960. That's intellectually dishonest. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Robert M wrote: > Steve McInTyre is the guy to read for the science: > > http://camirror.wordpress.com/ (the mirror for high volume) > > and > > http://www.climateaudit.org/ (his site) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308852 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
