Re: [asa] Trees don't lie

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Thu Mar 19 2009 - 00:21:04 EDT

What's not taken into account is Glenn does not take into account
enough data points. Specifically he does not account that this is
GLOBAL warming. One data series using one technique in one location
simply doesn't cut it. Good science is not only peer review it's also
repeatability, specifically repeatability using multiple techniques.
You will note the dates of the cited references (2000 and 2002) Quite
a few proxy studies have been done since then. When Mann did his
original hockey stick diagram in 1998 it was novel. Now it's consensus
because it showed up over and over and over using different kinds of
proxies and with greater geographic dispersal. Here's where the proxy
data is collected in a 2008 study:

Here's a summary of a number of different studies showing the
consensus hockey stick (including Esper et al referenced on Glenn's

Science is done via peer review and then repeated the results also
under the aegis of peer review. When it gets repeated as we see above
it becomes the consensus view. One of the frustrating things is the
science-by-blog that's done in the climate skeptical community. Peter
Doran recently did a survey of earth scientists. Of those who claimed
expertise in climatology and published more than 50% of their peer-
reviewed articles on climate change 97.4% said anthropogenic climate
change was real. The lowest level of acceptance was amongst petroleum
geologists where 47% said the same. To have a blog author who is not a
domain expert crash the gates and claims to be the smartest guy in the
room is going to be met with -- shall we say -- a little resistance by
the domain experts. While it is possible that the lone outsider is
right and thousands of experts are wrong the burden is completely on
the outsider to get published in peer-reviewed journals (and be
repeated by the domain experts).

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

On Mar 18, 2009, at 8:43 PM, David Clounch wrote:

> May I suggest that global dimming has played a significant role?
> The albedo of the planet is artificially increased by pollutants. This
> cools the earth. This is how we can have high CO2 levels and be cooler
> than in 1000AD.
> When the air pollution is cleaned up we could see a rapid increase in
> temperature, all
> other factors being equal.
> PS (all other factors are rarely ever equal, right?)
> PSPS I said a couple of weeks ago that the albedo has decreased by 5%
> and nobody called me on it.
> On 3/18/09, William Hamilton <> wrote:
>> Glenn Morton published a piece on his blog on tree ring data, that
>> contradicts the IPCC hockey stick temperature graph. Comments?
>> Glenn's
>> blog is at
>> --
>> William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
>> Member American Scientific Affiliation
>> Austin, TX
>> 248 821 8156
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 19 00:21:47 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 19 2009 - 00:21:48 EDT