Post by trbixler on Apr 3, 2012 17:08:34 GMT
Worthy of a read and some comments.
"Proxy Science and Proxy Pseudo-Science"
by Pat Frank
"Temperature meaning of the numerically scaled composites: zero.
The seven studies are typical, and representative of the entire field of AGW-related proxy thermometry. As commonly practiced, it is a scientific charade. It’s pseudo-science through-and-through.
Stable isotope studies are real science, however. That field is cooking along and the scientists involved are properly paying attention to detail. I hereby fully except them from my general condemnation of the field of AGW proxythermometry.
With this study, I’ve now examined the reliability of all three legs of AGW science: Climate models (GCMs) here (calculations here), the surface air temperature record here (pdf downloads, all), and now proxy paleotemperature reconstructions.
Every one of them thoroughly neglects systematic error. The neglected systematic error shows that none of the methods – not one of them — is able to resolve or address the surface temperature change of the last 150 years.
Nevertheless, the pandemic pervasiveness of this neglect is the central mechanism by which AGW alarmism survives. This has been going on for at least 15 years; for GCMs, 24 years. Granting integrity, one can only conclude that the scientists, their reviewers, and their editors are uniformly incompetent.
Summary conclusion: When it comes to claims about unprecedented this-or-that in recent global surface temperatures, no one knows what they’re talking about.
I’m sure there are people who will dispute that conclusion. They are very welcome to come here and make their case."
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/proxy-science-and-proxy-pseudo-science/
"Proxy Science and Proxy Pseudo-Science"
by Pat Frank
"Temperature meaning of the numerically scaled composites: zero.
The seven studies are typical, and representative of the entire field of AGW-related proxy thermometry. As commonly practiced, it is a scientific charade. It’s pseudo-science through-and-through.
Stable isotope studies are real science, however. That field is cooking along and the scientists involved are properly paying attention to detail. I hereby fully except them from my general condemnation of the field of AGW proxythermometry.
With this study, I’ve now examined the reliability of all three legs of AGW science: Climate models (GCMs) here (calculations here), the surface air temperature record here (pdf downloads, all), and now proxy paleotemperature reconstructions.
Every one of them thoroughly neglects systematic error. The neglected systematic error shows that none of the methods – not one of them — is able to resolve or address the surface temperature change of the last 150 years.
Nevertheless, the pandemic pervasiveness of this neglect is the central mechanism by which AGW alarmism survives. This has been going on for at least 15 years; for GCMs, 24 years. Granting integrity, one can only conclude that the scientists, their reviewers, and their editors are uniformly incompetent.
Summary conclusion: When it comes to claims about unprecedented this-or-that in recent global surface temperatures, no one knows what they’re talking about.
I’m sure there are people who will dispute that conclusion. They are very welcome to come here and make their case."
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/03/proxy-science-and-proxy-pseudo-science/