As you recall from several years ago, the argument has always been that the warming right now is unprecedented. The evidence was reconstructed temps deduced from treering proxies. Or so we thought. But it turns out if the scientists used the same method (calculated by treering width/density) on the recent growth of trees, the temp reading they get doesn't match the high temp reading of actual temps that we have actual data for. This is the problem they had to solve. All they had to do was misrepresent the graph. And as we see now, it doesn't matter to people like ching chang here one little bit. They are perfectly happy to call it science if it meets their goals.
Even with the knowledge of the deception, warmers remain faithful.
The facts about the adjustments are not in dispute. They mated real temps onto estimated temps derived by theories about temps and tree ring size.
One part of the temp graph has error margins, the other does not. We know the real temps. The recent temps should have beeen calculated using the treering method. Hoe else can we know how to determine the temps from treering data? Cart before the horse? WTF?
Clearly, the actual temps not matching the temps derived by treering method SHOULD have called the treering method into question.
Not our heros!. Just use the real temps when the treerings stop making their case
It's obvious to me that the posters here who still defend this science, really don't understand it.
