I wish I could make up my mind one way or the other on this AGW matter.
Every time I see cogent articles about it being true something comes up
to place more doubt in my mind.
The latest is this tree rings affair. It seems that the tree ring
measurments used by the IPCC are in fact, to put it delicately, inaccurate.
A small number of trees were included in part of the statistical count.
When all the available number of tree counts were included the
medieval temperatures were significantly higher.

Despite Q&A's best endeavours I am still concerned that the
temperature curve of CO2 may still have rolled over so far that more
CO2 will have negligible effect.
In any case I think we are all worrying about the wrong problem.
Much sooner we will be worrying about how to keep our economy
running a constant low level. The latest thinking is suggesting that
every time oil costs at or above 4% of an economies GDP we will have
a recession. In our economy I believe that is US$70 a barrel.
I am not sure of that as I have not been able to find the relevant figures.

What an anti-climax! I thought Paul was going to announce that at last someone had found irrefutable evidence that climate change is man-induced. Instead we find that he quotes such eminent alarmists as Sir Nicholas Stern and the IPCC, and reports that alleged scientists arbitrarily are changing their view by replacing the arbitrary CO2 target of 450ppm with the arbitrary target of 350ppm. This is indeed alarming, as they are ignoring the fact that decreasing CO2 levels will produce slower plant growth, thereby de-greening the planet in the process. Shame!

Now OLO's server is back up.

I did see a response from Leo but it seems to have disappeared into cyberspace.

If your still there Leo, the Tribunal's decision was set aside on appeal to the Supreme Court ... for very good reasons. I suggest you read the link again (it may help to put your rose coloured biases aside though).

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

It is particularly pertinent to read Justice Mackenzie's reasons from clause 59 to 68.

You might also note the Supreme Court judge (not being a statistician himself) doubts the expert witness (Bob Carter) for being somewhat loose with time series statistical analysis - aka the "cooling since 1998" canard.

Bazz,

If you have been following the saga, you may (or may not) agree with who said this;

"Science is made up of people challenging assumptions and other peoples’ results with the overall desire of getting closer to the ‘truth’.

There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. Or even thinking about what would happen if it was all wrong.

What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct.

Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review?

He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast (in the blogosphere and mainstream media), apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered.

If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Peer-review is nothing sinister and not part of some global conspiracy, but instead it is the process by which people are forced to match their rhetoric to their actual results.

You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does ..."

Steve McIntyre hasn't published his findings for peer review, why not you may well ask?

Yes, Q & A my post has disappeared.

From recollection I pointed out that the decision in Xstrata was set aside on technical grounds. Certain opportunities for preparation and response were said to be denied to the greenies and the matter was referred back for rehearing. The decision did not relate to the merits or otherwise of the QCC case.

The Queensland government wisely legislated against the greenies going back to waste more of the Tribunal’s time. They no doubt read about Ian Lowe’s evidence. The judge did not say he was lying, just that his figure was “15 times too high”. Lowe admitted to this in the witness box.

Your reference to adverse comments by a Judge on Carter seems to be something you dreamt. It is not in the judgement.

Your attack on Steve McIntyre is baseless. McIntyre is always careful to be restrained and factual. Do you wish his chronicle of efforts to obtain withheld data from people like Hansen and Briffa to be peer reviewed?

Your factless attack on McIntyre is a waste of space, and of my time commenting on it.

Your broad statement that peer review is nothing sinister, overlooks the way it is practiced by the IPCC.

Do you have no answer, to McIntyre’ careful exposition of it?

McIntyre’s painstaking, factual assertion is here, in case you missed it:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html

Nick/Leo.

McIntyre has NOT had his "factual assertion" (your words) published in any real Journal.

At least not in these:

Journal of Paleoclimatology
Journal of Statistical Modelling
Journal of Paleontology
Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics
Journal of Climatology
Journal of Physical Statistics
Journal of Statistics
etc

But, wow! Steve McIntyre has had his "factual assertions" published on a right-wing-think-tank's blog site ... whoopee-doo! You really can't help it, Nick/Leo.

Yes, the SPPI - home away from home for Bob Carter, Soon, Kininmonth, Idso, D'Aleo and the Lord Chris himself. I'm surprised you didn't include the Heartland Institute's or Tech Central Station's or the Cato Institute's blog sites as well (or Anthony Watts', or Jennifer Marohassy's, or Joanna Nova's et al) - you know, the 'denialoblogosphere'.

So, you ask if I have an "answer to McIntyre’s careful exposition of it?"

Why not go straight to the source Nick/Leo, that's what most genuine and rational people do? (Hint: Ask Keith Briffa himself)

But no, you won't do that. So let me point you in the right direction.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Oh, and for your information, the IPCC collects, correlates and diseminates 1000's of all ready peer reviewed and published papers from reputable journals - NOT from ideological biased blog sites.