Comments on: The Magic Correlation

By: hunter

hunter — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:07:45 +0000

timbrom – good at spotting ad hominems aren’t you, you cocksucker? Can you also spot arguments from incredulity? Hint: look at morganovich’s most recent post.

By: timbrom

timbrom — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:22:57 +0000

As a regular and frequent browser of Climate Change websites, one learns to spot certain characteristics both of data and contributors. The ad hominem attack is solely confined to the tactical responses of the AGW supporter. If I was morganovich, I’d switch to another thread, as hunter is clearly never going to listen to reason, nor respond to logic. He BELIEVES.

By: morganovich

morganovich — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:48:19 +0000

actually, i am quite precise. until something is proved, you cannot say “definite”. (and even then new info can prove you wrong)

you are conspicuously lacking in any evidence that temperature can be meaningfully and consistently inferred from tree rings. it stretches credibility that temperature is a sufficiently isolatable variable that a broad response like ring growth can determine it. how would you separate out rainfall? pest infestations? CO2 level? sunshine? can you show that temperature is more important to growth than these?

the burden of proof falls upon the one who proposes a theory. (especially when other have found clear holes in it

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:22:55 +0000

You’re extremely careless with your language. Don’t imply that there may not be a relationship, if you only mean to say that the relationship is not linear.

Denying that temperature affects tree rings is like denying that obesity is caused by overeating. Questioning how accurate tree ring reconstructions can be is sensible; claiming that tree ring reconstructions are fiction is crazy. Why would anyone take your views seriously when they are as ridiculous as that?

By: morganovich

morganovich — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:35:11 +0000

i also say likely because i do not believe the variable has been (and quite possible even can be) sufficiently isolated to draw meaningful conclusions. it is certainly reasonable to suspect an influence, but to assume one a priori is not good science.

By: morganovich

morganovich — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:30:24 +0000

i say likely because it is very possibly not a linear relationship.

are these the same papers where the actual sign of the response changes in many cases if you alter the reference period (divergence)?

if your entire contribution to a discussion is contrariness, straw men, and appeal to authority, why do you bother?

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:43:11 +0000

“i believe that a large number of factors (of which temperature is likely one) affect tree growth” – only likely? So you do believe that it is possible that temperature has no effect at all on tree growth.

“temperature as a single variable cannot be meaningfully inferred from such a multi-input outcome as ring width or density” – there are thousands of scientific papers published over many decades which show that you are wrong. If you’ve got persuasive evidence that they’ve all made some grand and basic error, then I’ll look forward to seeing your journal paper. Science or Nature should lap it up.

By: hunter

hunter — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:32:53 +0000

“i believe that a large number of factors (of which temperature is likely one) affect tree growth” – yeah, no shit Sherlock!

“and that temperature as a single variable cannot be meaningfully inferred from such a multi-input outcome as ring width or density” – and there you lose the plot. I learnt about tree rings and climate in primary school. Where were you educated?

You can learn more here, if you want to:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/3-3-3.html

By: morganovich

morganovich — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:04:40 +0000

that is a straw man argument.

i believe that a large number of factors (of which temperature is likely one) affect tree growth and that temperature as a single variable cannot be meaningfully inferred from such a multi-input outcome as ring width or density.

you appear interested merely in wasting time as opposed to providing any actual information, so at this point, i’ll leave you to it…

By: hunter

hunter — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:57:52 +0000

So apparently you believe that all species of trees grow equally well regardless of what the temperature is.