G'day ImranCan,

Which statement is misleading. I am a little confused with Samwik's comments. The comment "a hockey stick" normally refers to the very much fudged data used by Al Gore in an incomplete truth that was derived by a group of scientists that simply discarded any studies that gave a different result to their ideal of a hockey stick. That type of scientific methodology should be unacceptable to anyone and should be roundly condemned. That it wasn't by a great many shows just how bad this debate can get.

Both your posts, to me anyway, are ambigious. You indicate that there is a misleading statement but don't say what statement that is that is misleading. The research or the comment by Samwik? Samwik uses a reference to "Hockey Stick" that could mean that the study would produce a very neat hockey stick and thus would reinforce other studies or it could be in a derogatory way saying that this study too seems to be too good to be true.

This isn't a critiscm of any stance by either of you, only a request to make the comments less ambigious so we actually know what we are meant to be discussing. It might have seemed really plain to both of you when you wrote these comments but I'm confused. Maybe its just me.

Oh, and I really don't like references to studies that are available only to members of the organisation that controls the website. The abstract is of little assistance. What where the 18 studies? Where were they found? If they didn't use tree rings, what did they use? How where the 18 selected? Actually, the full study may not deem it important enough to answer these questions but these types of questions can never be answered by reference to an abstract only.

A 30 year running mean was selected for some reason. These types of manipulations of data, very much concern me. Would a 50 running mean paint a different picture? Or a 10 year one for that matter. What does the data look like without the running mean? Why the need to deal in anomolies? If what you want to show is the variation of temperature over time then surely data that represents a variation of temperature over time rather than the anomolies would be a far better way to display the results?

I can rattle off literally dozens of reasons why tree ring date does not capture long term climate changes, short term climate changes, or anything to do with temperature at all. But so too can I do this for pretty much any other data that attempts to reflect the climate over the last several centuries. About the only one that is difficult to criticise is an analysis of anecodal evidence whether in the written or painted form. But here again this does not represent actual temperatures, only whether it was colder or warmer during certain periods for certain places on earth.


Regards


Richard

Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness