So the tree ring data after 1960 doesn’t match real temperature measurements. But apparently that didn’t stop these guys from using tree ring data as a source of global temperatures for before and after 1960. A reasonable person would question the usefulness of tree rings in determining global temperatures, since the period for which we have the most real data does not correlate well.
But if you’re a global warming fanatic, the tactic is to continue to use the tree ring data, and just falsify the post-1960 tree ring data by substituting real temperature measurements. Obviously, the older tree ring data is useful to them in making some other point. Perhaps making the medieval warming period disappear?
If I understand correctly what’s going on here, these guys need to be drummed out of the science community. And they should go to jail. The social impact of these liars has been tremendous. Hopefully, Copenhagen is a dead meeting now.
Tree rings have to be significantly affected by rain fall, temperature and CO2 levels. I suspect they don’t have a good way of untangling the various factors into accurate individual components.
So they just make stuff up...
It depends on which "real temperature measurements" they chose. Remember, the balloon and satellite temperature data also show either no warming or only a very slight warming. The ONLY contemporary temperature data that actually shows warming are those from the land-based weather stations, and that has already been show by McIntyre to have significant problems.
So it may actually be the case that the tree-ring data really DOES match real temperature measurements, and both sets show no warming.
The tree ring data (cherry picked from tree rings that didn’t support their hockey stick, from trees in the Ural Mountains) was used to dispose of the “inconvenient” Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.