[N_Fiddledog]

Sidebar - (Hey Zip, you know just between you and me, I'm starting to maybe, warm to Briffa. It's starting to look like maybe he's a guy who wanted to do good science, but he got in with a bad crowd, and the pressure to do bad science was just too great. He may be more like one of those poor schmucks in Russia who had to work under Lysenkoism. There's a theory it may have been Briffa who released the climategate documents.)

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Warming did not cause the pine beetle infestation. Not even David Suzuki is brave enough to say it did. Warming may have facilitated some of the spread, but it did not cause the infestation. Green Eco nuttiness infecting bureaucracies, and causing bad forestry practices may have been more likely as an actual cause. Blame Elizabeth May, if you're looking for somebody to blame for that one.

I was speaking to a research scientist specializing in forest entomology, an din particular the pine beetle, just a couple of weeks ago on the subject. The cause of the pine beetle infestation is probably due to more than one cause, including warming. Forestry practices added to the problem too, though they weren't the result solely of environmentalist pressure.

$1:

You've got a point, but I'm kind of damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

You chose to attack Briffa and Jones personally in the past, therefore you can't expect to cite their papers without being accused of cherry picking--which is exactly what you are doing here.

$1:

But yeah OK, I will concede. Let's both agree those guys are clowns, and not worth listening to. Doesn't matter. Go back to that same site. I forget exactly where it is there, but some place on that site they keep a record of all the studies on the Medieval warm period. That Briffa/Jones one was not unique. It was only handy. The idea was that if the fact is so unchallengeable even those crooks have to admit it, it has to be true.

I don't agree they're "clowns." Again, that's why I don't end up being trapped by the logical inconsistency you've fallen victim to--I don't attack the person, I take issue with the science. You see, I can easily quote Lindzen, even though I don't agree with some of his stuff, because I have never referred to him as a "clown" or (as some AGW proponents claim) a pawn of the oil industry. Same with Steve McIntyre--I've got a lot of respect for what he did, though I don't agree with a lot of what he says.

What proxies and what statistical methods (e.g. principle component alanysis) did Jones and Briffa use ion their study? Was it Briffa's pine cone set? That is more interesting to me than the putative character of the authors.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Sidebar - (Hey Zip, you know just between you and me, I'm starting to maybe, warm to Briffa. It's starting to look like maybe he's a guy who wanted to do good science, but he got in with a bad crowd, and the pressure to do bad science was just too great. He may be more like one of those poor schmucks in Russia who had to work under Lysenkoism. There's a theory it may have been Briffa who released the climategate documents.)

Well, my opinion is that the whole bunch got caught up in "advocacy science" (which isn't really science at all. They convinced themselves--rightly or wrongly--that AGW was a serious and imminent threat and then they focused more on trying to convince people of this rather than just focus on the science.

It's the same with the scientists who study smoking. Smoking is bad, and therefore they will only research areas or find conclusions that support this--because smoking is, indeed, bad and being "good" human beings they want to reinforce that notion. The problem is that the science becomes further and further removed from reality over time, until you get ridiculous conclusions like they have now--that the absolute cost of smoking to society goes up as the number of smokers goes down.

Advocacy science removes objectivity from science, and that effectively kills science. My opinion anyways.