How do we know that post 1960 tree ring data is bad, and needs to be adjusted, yet pre 1960 data is good? What happened to tree growth after 1960?
Something completely unknown is making tree rings too small after 1960. And if you correlate your tree ring data to post-1960 temperatures it makes historical temperature look way too high.
Bizarro-Briffa sent a similar letter to Bizarro-Nature warning of an unknown divergence problem and saying not to correlate tree rings to pre-1960 temperatures because it makes historical temperature look way too low.
Since we do not know why the temperature has not correctly correlated over the last 50s years, we can't really know when else that has been the case, can we?
So why do we rely on tree rings for any period?
They are proven to be unreliable over a signifcant period, and we don't know if or how often that's also true of the past.
Thus, either (a) it has already been done, or (b) it is more difficult than you would expect for non-obvious reasons. So what is your point? Have you even bothered to find out if anyone has done it or not?
The standard of evidence to show fault is yours. Assuming that papers published in freaking NATURE have sound statistics is a reasonable thing for a layman to do.
I thought that's what you were asserting. My assumption is that scientists have correlated tree ring data with other sources and found it to be unreliable. But of course, neither my nor your assumptions about what's possible and impossible in this area are worth a damn, because we __don't know what we're talking about__. That is my point.
Also, all this talk about fallacies, ad homonim, etc. etc., is very "internet". Especially since you only seem to have a vague grasp of what these words actually mean. Do you think we could maybe leave all that stuff out and have a serious discussion?
That or you go look for the papers or the reason the papers have not been written.
This game is old. The standard of proof to demonstrate the method is flawed based on poor correlations is on your side. The method to do the correlation is public knowledge. The data to correlate is public knowledge. R is open source. Go forth and correlate.
You're confused about something: the post you're replying to clearly wasn't accusing an entire scientific field of engaging in "completely terrible" statistics. The poster was just questioning whether the comparison you were suggesting was feasible given our current (rather imperfect) knowledge of temperature changes over the last few hundred years. It may not be a matter of just getting two sets of figures and comparing them.
This is a clear claim that climate science researchers have not done basic statistics when presenting new models. This claim has been substantiated by nothing except you requesting more and more detailed analysis from non-experts, which you discount every time we provide it because you assert that you would only listen to an expert.
Ironically, you are actually failing to respect the authority of experts, because the discussion is fundamentally an accusation that experts are failing to do basic statistics. You are accusing us of not being experts so you can't listen to us in the defense of the experts you're attacking by proxy.
I seriously fucking doubt you understood any of this. But it doesn't matter, I won't return. I have no tolerance for people who argue by asking questions and petulantly demanding unreasonable proof while providing absolutely nothing of their own.
Thanks for ruining hacker news.
My problem here is that I'm not sure which metaphorical goalposts you are referring to. By the way, constantly talking in terms of "fallacies" (especially these informal ones, as opposed to actual fallacies of propositional or predicate logic) just makes you sound like a petulant 15 year old. (Ad hominem -- I'll do that one for you.) Don't refer me to a Wikipedia page on the informal fallacy of the month; address what I'm saying instead. Otherwise, you may be guilty of the fallacy of Missing the Goddamn Point Because You're Looking For Fallacies Instead of Reading What the Other Guy has Written.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I can only suggest that you (a) reread the thread and (b) calm down. I am not accusing any scientists of failing to do basic statistics, and neither was anyone else. I am merely expressing my awesome ignorance of all things related to climate science, and suggesting that perhaps some of the other posters here are about as ignorant of these issues as I am, but lacking a suitable degree of caution in their statements.
Good luck with leaving HN. Sadly, I very much doubt that you will find any discussion sites worthy of your superior intellect.
Climate research is research. It is not some know-it alls claiming one thing or another. It is making up theories and testing and aligning them with available data. It is trying to get new sources for data. And so on. It is an ongoing process.
Science never KNOWS anything. It only assigns weights and likelihoods.
We don't know if all history of earth is just an illusion, because we could just be a computer simulation that started 10 seconds ago.
So we will never KNOW if tree ring data at all times before 1960 correlated with temperature. All we can do is to collect evidence, make up theories and compare them with reality.
Disclaimer: I am not a climate researcher myself.