thank you for the direct and responsive replies (as usual) but you’re confusing me now. You said much had been learned by auditing the Auditor. How was it possible to “audit the Auditor” if (as you claim) the Auditor has withheld enabling details, or otherwise acted so as to make his methods inscrutable/non-auditable?

Yes.

You are allowed to comment. It’s just that nobody has to take your comments seriously.

“And McI is not covering things up? Really?”

Not as far as I know.

“It’s been like pulling teeth to get him to even admit in passing that his red noise methods left a residual HS signal.”

What’s that got to do with a coverup? Are you suggesting he’s withheld enabling details, or otherwise acted so as to make his methods inscrutable/non-auditable?

“Auditing the auditor has turned up far more interesting material than the work of the original audit.”

If McIntyre’s work is auditable, that automatically makes him more of a scientist than certain alleged scientists.

“Being that you’re not an actively publishing dendroclimatologist, I’d say that counts for exactly nothing relative to this field of research. You might as well tell me you dispute some nuance of evolutionary theory.”

Lame. You may as well tell us you *don’t* dispute some nuance of dendroclimatological orthodoxy. Either non-experts are allowed to comment or they’re not. Please make up your mind, Rob.

“You were all over the issue with deleting the erroneous divergent data from Briffa’s series, because it wasn’t showing all the data. But when McI cherry picks and flips all those graphs without telling anyone, no big deal.

You’re applying different standards to the two sides.”

I pointed out that I wasn’t using a double standard, and that I put Briffa in the clear if divergence is established as not an issue. Since you are talking about my standards, I would think my opinion on the subject is relevant to that.

Being that you’re not an actively publishing dendroclimatologist, I’d say that counts for exactly nothing relative to this field of research. You might as well tell me you dispute some nuance of evolutionary theory.

When I hear someone debating the validity of something outside their field of expertise my initial “skeptical” reaction is, the greater likelihood is this person lacks the deeper knowledge to understand what they’re talking about.

My position is, science works. I don’t need to trust any individual scientist because it has been proven over and over that the process works. Sometimes there are errors. Some people get bad science published. But over the longer term, the process works.

We now have many decades of research on AGW and the one answer that fits all the results is, we are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate and, if we can’t get carbon emissions under control, we’re going to dramatically alter the climate system, with severe results for humans and other natural systems.

MBH98/99 is one very tiny piece of that large puzzle that is fully consistent with that picture, along with, now, some two dozen other similar multiproxy reconstructions.

McI’s work? It’s been an incredible waste of everyone’s time and has lead to further delays in solving the massive problems that we face with this issue.