Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

More proof of the pathological nature of the “Global Warming” crowd.

Treemometers: A new scientific scandal

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology. Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a “reconstruction” of historical temperature anomalies. But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record Co2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.

Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data. In dendro jargon, this disparity is called “divergence”. The process of creating a raw data set also involves a selective use of samples - a choice open to a scientist’s biases.

Criminal prosecutions must begin for their fraud.

im shocked!!! surely global warming is fact–how else are the secular materialists to channel their guilt.

I gotta love the fraud claims skeptics come up with to try and debunk global warming. Anyway a few links here might help clear up this so called major scandal… :rolleyes:

Really though the idea that most climatologists not to mention pretty much all the major scientific societies/academies in the world are in on some sort of major scandal is a little hard to believe isn;t it? I mean we are probably talking about 100 of thousands on the low end of people here.

Isn’t the anti-Christ supposed to beguile the vast majority?Suppose he/she is an environmentalist?Nah…couldn’t be.

I’m no scientist, I say that up front. I barely passed college Chemestry :wink: BUT… I do think that Global Warming is real, however on a much smaller scale than what most are lead to believe. For example: in the famous portrate of Washington crossing the Deleware River, there are iceburgs depicted in the picture. Of course, that could be artistic leeway but I BELIEVE it could be historically proven too-- Washington wrote how horrible the winter was in all of his letters to congress! Anyway, the Deleware hasn’t frozen like that since and something had to lead towards that.

Again, just personal opinion so please don’t bash me.

No proof at all and no fraud, just someone twisting information and discussion to fit their own agenda. And ***Calliso ***has provided links to reports that give a good overview (some with a lot of detail) that address the studies referred to and provide a window into what the scientific process is all about.

You need to understand that there is no “global warming” conspiracy. If you were to read the reports going back 50 years or so, you would see how the ideas developed through observation, experiment and study by scientists in various fields, little by little, study by study. You should also realize that any information presented in a scientific journal gets vetted, and that other researchers review the data, replicate the studies, compare them with findings by other scientists, interpret the results. And scientists question all the time, since that is the nature of their profession. How do these results compare to what others have found? How does the data from tree studies compare with data from sediment cores, or the ice caps, etc? What other explanations could there be for the results?

And as more data is gathered and new and better techniques for extracting and analyzing this data are developed, we learn more. I recall that in the late fifties, some scientists were indicating that a new mini “ice age” could start within a hundred years, as the earth’s climate cooled. This idea came from some of the data being collected during the IGY, which was really the beginning of major efforts to understand the earth. But so much more has been learned since then, and of course few, if any, would say that we are heading in that direction now.

This continuous process produces a lot of information, some of which may be in agreement with prior studies, some of it not. But you cannot suggest that global warming is occurring or not occurring just by one study or one person’s interpretation of one set of data.

The question to be answered is not whether “global warming” or climate change is true. There is absolutely no doubt that climate change has occurred over the eons, and will continue to occur. It is a naturral ongoing process. The questions to consider are: What is occurring now? Which way is it headed? Is it accelerating? Is human activity contributing to the speed, direction or severity of climate change? What will happen if current trends continue? What, if anything, can we or should we do about it?

When you look at the information that we have on earth’s climate going back thousands and tens of thousands of years, one thing that stands out is the realization that we are in a benign part of the cycle, and that the overall climate conditions have probably been near the optimum in recent millennia. Perhaps this is one reason why civilization has been able to progress so much in the past few thousand years.

And like any other cycle it will continue to move, and conditions will change, and those changes will likely not be positive ones, overall. That may not mean much to my generation, but it may be disastrous to the generations of the 21st century and beyond.

WRONG!!! Most scientists…meteorologists…climatologists do NOT believe in the fallacy of global warming. Espcially not anthropogenic. You only hear from the pockets whose money the false research lines.

30 years a professional meteorologist with friends and acquaintances in the field internationally.

I’m not sure your links clear up much of anything (I only checked the first and last ones). The first is a response by an author of one of the papers that was challenged … and, surprise, he supports his conclusion. Actually, he’s not quite sure what to say yet as he hadn’t had time to address the specific issues raised. I think “cleared up” is a bit of a stretch at this point.

Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

Regarding the last reference, it is to a paper submitted in 2007 so I’m really struggling to grasp its responsiveness to charges made in 2009. I did note, however, that the first author listed was Michael Mann and I don’t think he’s the best of sources to cite given his (scientifically) disastrous attempt to remove the medieval warm period as well as the little ice age in his famous, but now entirely discredited, hockey stick graph. Interestingly, I believe the McIntyre referred to by the author of the first article is the same person who, along with a colleague, demolished Mann’s chart.

Really though the idea that most climatologists not to mention pretty much all the major scientific societies/academies in the world are in on some sort of major scandal is a little hard to believe isn;t it? I mean we are probably talking about 100 of thousands on the low end of people here.

I doubt that there are even a hundred thousand journalists who believe in AGW; the claim that there are a hundred thousand scientists who believe it (and who are actually studying it) is simply preposterous.


I don’t think there is much doubt that the climate has changed over the last 100 years and even the changes in my personal 62 years are there for those of us in the same age group to discuss.

For those of us that live in “northern climates” like Canada and Finland for example, there is not much doubt that winters are shorter, milder and wetter than we remember as children and that official statistics report. Here at 62 degrees of latitude we often do not get snow that stays on the ground even for Christmas. The idea of a “dark Christmas” was quite a rarity 50 years ago, now it is common.

What we can disagree about is the cause. As a geologist the evidence for even milder spells in the relatively recent past are there, and for a really mild spell one needs to go back about 9000 years when the ice-age glaciers were melting.

I would think that the people who are climate change deniers have more of an economic axe to grind than the climate researchers do. If it could be proved that human activity causes climate change and that stopping it is defined as being good, then changes to economic production and activity is needed which gets expensive. If it is natural, we have the intelligence to adapt.

Time to consider adaption, rather than clinging to the status-quo by our finger nails, no matter what the cause.

If the scientific evidence is on your side then I would expect you to present a scientific argument. That the best you’ve got is personal insult indicates that you don’t have a stronger argument to present. Your comments in no way respond to the issue raised by the OP. I don’t argue that his position is valid, only that you haven’t bothered to address it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit