Does it sound by my post that I am ignorant of these "multiple" reconstructions? They all use the same proxies and similar techniques, Esper, Briffa, bristle cones, etc. I have read a good number of them. They are all awful.
Paleoclimatology isn't any worse than some other soft sciences I guess - the difference is that there isn't so much riding on them being right.
Wahl and Ammann 2007 does not appear to adequately address gd1's points. It just applies a slightly different statistical approach using the same flawed premise.
There are countless arguments and rebuttals to be found on both sides of the debate, but I've found the ones below to be particularly helpful:
Thanks. It would definitely have been better for those listening to this discussion to hear your counterpoints rather than me having to go look it up in a sea of words. Especially since I'm not really interested in the field. Also, you called his criticism simplistic without explaining why. Not very good manners.
The grandparent offered specific criticisms against said reconstruction, and you countered with, essentially, "others got the same result". Scientific questions are not decided by a majority vote. Do you have more concrete arguments?
The question was, would he accept independent reconstructions from other sources to change his opinions, since he finds PCA so objectionable. There are obviously lots of concrete arguments--I could come up with a pretty list of papers--but my time is valuable and I was curious if he was genuinely interested in the answer. (Apparently not.)
I don't even get what you're getting at: scientific arguments are also not decided by someone spouting off something they read off of Climate Audit and pretending to be an expert when they don't even have a passing familiarity with the scientific literature. Asking an open question "well, what would make you change your mind" is a perfectly reasonable response, especially when the answer is, expectedly, "nothing."
No, I'm not a climate scientist, though an immediate family member is.
Actually his answer was that he is familiar with several independent reconstructions and that they suffer from similarly problematic flaws, not that he is not "interested in the answer".
Your second paragraph is an ad hominem, where you make various assumptions about the OP. Yet there is still not a single coherent argument why the OP was actually wrong.
