They core a lot of them; still living trees. (Not always.) I do think that tree ring proxy interpretation is a somewhat arcane scientific pursuit. That's my opinion, and no doubt useful information is obtained from tree rings. But the quality of the various kinds of information -- well, we are witnesses to the controversies they generate. But scientists try to find a way to get insight into the past workings of the climate system, even if it's imperfect. I can't fault the effort even if the results are ... hmmm ... disputable.
How can anybody trust accuracy rates of + - 1 degree or more when the entire argument rests on a putative 0.8C?
That's actually easy to answer (thanks). Do you understand the "power of large numbers"? It works in a lot of different ways, in a lot of different venues. My favorite is sea surface height.
If any good comes out of this at all it will be voluntary conservation, not mandatory control of consumption.
It's not human nature to give up comfort and ease voluntarily; one has to count on collective altruism, and that's not an easy sell.
I would imagine that a loss of 70% of the reporting stations reduces the large-number theory just a bit; still, any value-added adjustment depends on the value set of the adjuster.
Now that we clearly see that the fraternity of believers are nearly monolithic in that respect, how does that affect your confidence in them?
This is too big to hide; either they start over or they back off and regroup.
Similarly, I think it is time for you to quit hiding behind the shield of authority and look at the whole scheme chronologically.
Science has become addicted to catastrophe as a discipline; where’s the benefit in that?
Collective altruism is a pipe dream; people must be an equal part of evolution, sacrifice denies the process and would collapse it were it to become collective.