Navigation bar
  Print document Start Previous page
 22 of 34 
Next page End  

Rep. Boehlerts
questions:
What is the current scientific
consensus on the temperature record
of the last 1,000 or 2,000 years?
What are the main areas of uncertainty
and how significant are they?
What is the current scientific
consensus on the conclusions reached
by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes?
What are principal scientific criticism
of their work and how significant are
they?
Has the information needed to
replicate their work been available?
Have other scientists been able to
replicate their work?
How central is the debate over the
paleoclimate
temperature record to the
overall consensus on global climate
change?
How central is the work of Drs. Mann,
Bradley and Hughes to the consensus
on the temperature record?
There is consensus on the “blade”, but the claimed
smoothness of the shaft is likely false.
The main problem is the loss of information encoded
in the proxy data and the shortness of the
instrumental record for training the statistical models.
There is no consensus on the claims (which?) made
by MBH. The main critique is that the method is
suffering from a too large loss of variability on long
time scales.
No, the information required for replication was not
made available in a suitable manner. The original
publication in “nature” did not provide this
information and was obviously published without
careful review of the methodology.
Yes, the details of the method were finally
determined, among others by Bürger
et al., who
checked a wide range of combinations of details –
which all gave widely different results.
The main conclusions about “detection and
attribution” are drawn from the instrumental record
and models; the different reconstructions do not
contradict “detection”.
The MBH work is widely accepted as truth outside of
people directly engaged in the issue, because of a less
than satisfactory marketing  by the IPCC.
http://www.purepage.com