It's interesting that all three of the Wegman report writers are statisticians, not climatologist. So the very learned report concerning the inaccuracies of tree ring data, for instance, is, on their part, at best a second-order conclusion based on the work of climatologists. The material on the problems of statistical studies--all the stuff on "noise," for instance, strikes me as being more a very critical conclusion about the nature of statistics, the subject in which Wegman et al. are experts. Indeed, the first 23 pages or so of the review are more about statistics than about climatology. Much of the controversy among studies that Wegman et al. report in fact underscores the imprecision of statistical studies, including what data is and is not relevant, what data is and is not reliable, etc. On the basis of what they say, perhaps we should throw out all
statistical studies. I for one would not mind, by the way.<br><br>It's interesting that another way of putting the assertion that climatological studies are read by an in-bred community is that the number of climatologists in the world is fairly limited, so the experts who do peer review are not very numerous, and of course know each other, have read each others' work, have collaborated from time to time, etc. The same thing applies in all advanced sciences, I imagine. There are only about 10,000 astrophysicists in the whole world, I believe, so all of them know each other, collaborate with each other, etc. I suppose therefore that Wegman and all could write exactly the same report, changing "climatologists" into "astrophysicists." All of the material from p. 17 to p. 23 and then later in even more gory detail is really about social networks, of researchers for instance. What gets said there strikes me as undermining all of science, natural as well as social, and in fact all peer--i. e. expert--reviewed work in any field.<br><br>The substantive assertions about the historical study of climatology are all, as I said, second-order: the authors of the study are not experts in the field. I'm not an expert in the field either, so there's no much that I can add to the subject. On the other hand, I do recognize that, given the nature of the Wegman report and what I presume is your equally non-expert knowledge of the field of paleoclimatology, any assertion such as your conclusion, "neat, concise, and wrong," is political. And so is my conclusion, which parallels Mr. Cheyney's approach to terrorists: if there's even a one percent chance that we're working to destroy the ecological balance of the planet, we ought to do something serious about it. In this case, if we end up being wrong, and there is no equivalent of WMD, then all that we will have done is clean up the atmosphere and encouraged innovative ways of producing energy. Not too shabby a result for a wrong conclusion, I'd say.<br><br>
. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.