The treerings are worthless, not even worth cutting them down or the extra CO2 that led to.
CRU has yet to produce the “lost raw data.”
Why keep or tolerate a bad instrument just because this isn’t a perfect world?
How can anybody trust accuracy rates of + - 1 degree or more when the entire argument rests on a putative 0.8C?
If any good comes out of this at all it will be voluntary conservation, not mandatory control of consumption.
Smart meters mean dumb people.
They core a lot of them; still living trees. (Not always.) I do think that tree ring proxy interpretation is a somewhat arcane scientific pursuit. That's my opinion, and no doubt useful information is obtained from tree rings. But the quality of the various kinds of information -- well, we are witnesses to the controversies they generate. But scientists try to find a way to get insight into the past workings of the climate system, even if it's imperfect. I can't fault the effort even if the results are ... hmmm ... disputable.
How can anybody trust accuracy rates of + - 1 degree or more when the entire argument rests on a putative 0.8C?
That's actually easy to answer (thanks). Do you understand the "power of large numbers"? It works in a lot of different ways, in a lot of different venues. My favorite is sea surface height.
If any good comes out of this at all it will be voluntary conservation, not mandatory control of consumption.
It's not human nature to give up comfort and ease voluntarily; one has to count on collective altruism, and that's not an easy sell.