# How does Prof Jones revelation affect AGW in particular and the peer review process generally?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 2, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038 "2010-03-02T21:10:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 17
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/81 "2010-03-04T09:16:00Z")
I’m getting the impression that your position boils down to “Yes, its pretty settled, but not so settled we should actually do anything about it.”
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/82 "2010-03-04T09:19:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> As I did not said that, I had to assume it was your take on what scientists had said. And if you still want to weasel out of that one, who is labeling all skeptics as “deniers”?
>
> It was a straw man argument.
If I quote you, I’ll use quote tags. And I’m not responsible for what you assume.
Is English your first language? If I state something is not the case, I’m not necessarily implying that you or anyone else said it is! You said if I’d paid attention to previous discussions, I’d know the difference between a skeptic and denier, or words to that effect. I clarified my own understanding, and that’s all I did.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/83 "2010-03-04T09:56:28Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> Fair enough.
>
> IIRC, previous FOI requests had been turned down on the grounds of confidentiality agreements, so that FOI does in fact make sense and is not necessary “vexatious”. And I DO think Jones would have been much better off giving out his data, or better yet, putting the non-confidential data into a public database as I believe Judith Curry has suggested.
I did check the list in the link, the impression I get is that it was not only McIntyre but many others from his site and others “helping”, it is not a lie that researchers can get bogged down by many requests and the requester ignoring beforehand the restrictions that researchers have many times with the data does not endear me to their “plight”.
> [@matt](#):
>
> Ah. I can’t watch videos here - old flash plugin and no Admin authority to upgrade. But seriously, its 3 or 4 little emails. You could, you know, READ them and express an opinion of your own.
I did before, the hackers attempted to pick the emails that in their view showed the researchers in the worst light possible, clearly the positions of the researchers were misrepresented in the ones that deniers and skeptics pointed as the worst examples. The 3 or 4 emails you are referring to need to take into context the underhanded behavior of McIntyre, they could then point to just valid concerns that even the investigators would be aware of. Bottom line, I do not consider them useful evidence.
> [@matt](#):
>
> The media, politicians, bloggers, probably some SDMB posters… one member whose name I won’t mention has stated explicitly on these boards that AGW deniers are equivalent to holocaust deniers. But anyway, a strawman argument implies an attack. Where in my reply to **elucidator** am I attacking anyone? I made a statement of my belief - "the intellectual edifice of AGW is as sound as it ever was. Which is fairly sound, but not sound enough to declare that “the science is settled”. Where’s the strawman?
When before that you say that “it is not sound enough” you are still implying that the research of Jones should be assailed, the proposition then is not refuting what \*\*elucidator \*\*and others are saying or referring to Jones.
Trenberg said that global warming is happening and that we should adapt to climate change if nothing is done, what does that had to to with what \*\*elucidator \*\*was saying regarding the research of Jones? As it was posted many times already by even guys involved in peer review, what Jones did was not rare. And his conclusions were confirmed by other research.
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/84 "2010-03-04T11:10:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> I’m getting the impression that your position boils down to “Yes, its pretty settled, but not so settled we should actually do anything about it.”
You’d be wrong. I’m on record as to what I think we should do [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11904387&postcount=34).
> [@me](#):
>
> personally I think there is time, not to waste but to work out properly what is going on and how to fix it. Wer’re going to feel a bit stupid if we switch to nuclear and natural gas and it turns out the cooling sulphate aerosols from burning coal make it a warming-neutral fuel. (It’s barely possible - the uncertainties in the cooling effects of sulphate aerosols are BIG.) Or we plant a bunch of carbon-offsetting trees and their methane emissions offset the CO2 they absorb.
>
> Time or not, if we’re serious as a species about ditching our fossil fuel habit, all this piddly little treaty signing isn’t going to achieve much. To stop using fossil fuels, we either have to dial right back our industrialised, mechanised, energy hungry economies, which isn’t going to happen, or make some fairly drastic changes in our infrastructure, which is going to take a hell of a lot more focus and work than what is being proposed. Politicians cruising around in limos watching presentations written by staffers doesn’t get a lot done.
>
> All this bullshit about caps and tariffs, which will be tough even to monitor and tougher still to enforce, isn’t going to work. Who’s going to measure how much CO2 various countries are emitting? Who’s going to measure how much carbon they’re offsetting by planting trees? What standing army of technicians are going to install and callibrate sensors on the various international smokestacks? Any country can cheat SO easily - thumbs on the scales, bypasses on the meters. Are we going to have an international “greenhouse” CIA to spy on countries and check they haven’t surreptitously increased the lengths of their coal rail wagons by 10%? It all comes down to an effort to force the market to fix the problem - make energy expensive, especially high -carbon energy, and the market will develop alternatives and people will learn to conserve. Weak, unco-ordinated, slow way to do things.
>
> What we need is an international effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project to develop the needed technologies fast, ship them out and get them in place. If we want to go nuclear, take the standardised French versions of the Pressurised Water Reactor, build a monster production facility for the reactor cores and ship them out al over the world. The rest is just industrial plumbing, steam turbines and poured concrete for redundant containment - anyone can build them. Set up an international school and teach everyone how to do it, and do it right.
>
> I’m always been a fan of OTEC and ICETEC - solar power that uses the whole ocean as a collector, but you don’t have to build all over the ocean. (I’m delighted to see that a Google seach of “otec icetec” leads to my previous Straightdope posts on the subject as hits 3 and 4!) And the offshore energy companies are the VERY people to build the plants - they have the ships, the expertise, the divers, the ROVs, the people. But nobody wants to build the first big OTEC plant - it’ll take more energy to construct than it’ll generate over it’s lifetime, and it’ll never turn a profit. But building the first one is a giant learning exercise for building all the following ones, and governments need to stump up a big cash incentive, right now. Pay for the first one outright, or offer a prize for the first company to build a 100 MW plant, or guarantee a subsidised price for OTEC electricity.
>
> Our industrialised nations employ thousands of talented scientists and excellent engineers, at high salaries and with HUGE budgets, to develop stealth bombers and kill drones and x-ray invisible grenade fragments. That is a hideous waste of all that expensively-educated brain power. Turn them over to something constructive! We could do it tomorrow. Our armies and navies and airforces are also full of engineers and technicians. Mothball half the death machines, change the uniforms, get them building solar power plants in the deserts. We could do it, but we won’t.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/85 "2010-03-04T12:03:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Oh really?
Yes. You can go to Climate Audit and see exactly what he does and how he does it. You may disagree with his data, findings, or methods, but it’s all out in the open.
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/86 "2010-03-04T12:25:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> it is not a lie that researchers can get bogged down by many requests and the requester ignoring beforehand the restrictions that researchers have many times with the data does not endear me to their “plight”.
Of course. But I do think the flurry of requests could have been avoided in the first place if the data had simply been available.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> I did before, the hackers attempted to pick the emails that in their view showed the researchers in the worst light possible, clearly the positions of the researchers were misrepresented in the ones that deniers and skeptics pointed as the worst examples. The 3 or 4 emails you are referring to need to take into context the underhanded behavior of McIntyre, they could then point to just valid concerns that even the investigators would be aware of. Bottom line, I do not consider them useful evidence.
Well I disagree with your interpretation of those specific emails, but I doubt either of us will persuade the other. Nevermind.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> When before that you say that “it is not sound enough” you are still implying that the research of Jones should be assailed
No I’m not. I said "The intellectual edifice of AGW is as sound as it ever was. Which is fairly sound, but not sound enough to declare that “the science is settled”. Nothing to do with assailing Jones’ research. I don’t think there’s anything _wrong_ with Jones’ research, only with his sharing practises and advocacy.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> the proposition then is not refuting what **elucidator** and others are saying or referring to Jones.
**elucidator** didn’t say anything that needed refuting, at least not by me. His question was at least part-rhetorical, and made the point that whatever Jones has done, it wouldn’t affect the existing body of climate science. I agree with that.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Trenberg said that global warming is happening and that we should adapt to climate change if nothing is done, what does that had to to with what **elucidator** was saying regarding the research of Jones? As it was posted many times already by even guys involved in peer review, what Jones did was not rare. And his conclusions were confirmed by other research.
I’m having trouble following your points here. **elucidator’s** question referrred to the “entire intellectual edifice of AGW” and I posted Trenberth’s paper as a nice technical introduction to the “intellectual edifice”, both for him and for anybody who was interested. The rest of your post I simply don’t understand.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/87 "2010-03-04T13:34:00Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> Yes. You can go to Climate Audit and see exactly what he does and how he does it. You may disagree with his data, findings, or methods, but it’s all out in the open.
The point that was made is that McIntyre should release all the communications and contacts that he made with the “independent” Wegman panel.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/88 "2010-03-04T14:14:37Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> Of course. But I do think the flurry of requests could have been avoided in the first place if the data had simply been available.
The issue that will remain IMHO is that Jones will suffer for being so obtuse regarding the emails.
I do not think that having the data released means anything to guys like McIntyre, in last February’s petition to parliament he said that “To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly “independent” of CRU influence.” That includes the Mann one from 2008, even with the data released. And still accuses researches of manipulating the data.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/89 "2010-03-04T16:04:18Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> No I’m not. I said "The intellectual edifice of AGW is as sound as it ever was. Which is fairly sound, but not sound enough to declare that “the science is settled”. Nothing to do with assailing Jones’ research. I don’t think there’s anything _wrong_ with Jones’ research, only with his sharing practises and advocacy.
Well, others need to be aware that saying that “the science is settled” is not something that we or the researchers are saying. I’m just saying. 🙂
> [@matt](#):
>
> I’m having trouble following your points here. **elucidator’s** question referrred to the “entire intellectual edifice of AGW” and I posted Trenberth’s paper as a nice technical introduction to the “intellectual edifice”, both for him and for anybody who was interested. The rest of your post I simply don’t understand.
And I’m just remarking on what Tremberg did say on that introduction, maybe you are not aware of it, but one of the infamous CRU emails that has been misrepresented to death involves Tremberg. Tremberg did link to that paper in the email, but somehow the contents were not mentioned by many of the deniers.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/90 "2010-03-04T18:31:40Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> Waht I do have a beef with is them doing the same thing in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The report that went out to governments and policymakers. The report where they chose to show proxy data (Fig. 2.21) spliced with instrumental data, without disclosing anywhere that data had been spliced in that figure, or discussing the divergence problem anywhere.
What splicing are you referring to? [Here](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm) is Fig. 2.21 from the Third Assessment Report and I see them as having clearly identified which is proxy data and which is instrumental data. If you are talking about the summary for policymakers (which realistically is probably the only part that most policymakers read), then [here](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm) is the corresponding figure, again with a distinction made between the proxy data and the instrumental record.
And, although it was not named as such, it seems there was reference to the divergence issue [here](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm) (bolding added):
> [@](#):
>
> Several important caveats must be borne in mind when using tree-ring data for palaeoclimate reconstructions. Not least is the intrinsic sampling bias. Tree-ring information is available only in terrestrial regions, so is not available over substantial regions of the globe, and the climate signals contained in tree-ring density or width data reflect a complex biological response to climate forcing. Non-climatic growth trends must be removed from the tree-ring chronology, making it difficult to resolve time-scales longer than the lengths of the constituent chronologies (Briffa, 2000). **Furthermore, the biological response to climate forcing may change over time. There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a).** By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in “multi-proxy” estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).
The Briffa et al. reference is to Briffa, K.R., F.H. Schweingruber, P.D. Jones, T.J. Osborn, S.G. Shiyatov and E.A. Vaganov, 1998a: Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature, **391** , 678-682.
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/91 "2010-03-05T00:10:20Z")
> [@jshore](#):
>
> What splicing are you referring to? [Here](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm) is Fig. 2.21 from the Third Assessment Report and I see them as having clearly identified which is proxy data and which is instrumental data.
True. I was incorrect about splicing in TAR3 - splicing was only carried out for the WHO report cover graph. I think they simply truncated Briffa’s divergent post 1960 data in TAR3, see my post 72. I’d be interested to know if that truncation was also performed in the referenced paper.
> [@jshore](#):
>
> The Briffa et al. reference is to Briffa, K.R., F.H. Schweingruber, P.D. Jones, T.J. Osborn, S.G. Shiyatov and E.A. Vaganov, 1998a: Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature, **391** , 678-682.
Thanks. If you have access to that reference, could you possibly clarify something for me? On what grounds it is believed that that this reduced sensitivity is purely a recent phenomenon, and not intermittent throughout the whole tree ring density record?
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/92 "2010-03-05T00:23:32Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Furthermore, the biological response to climate forcing may change over time. There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a).
That’s pretty oblique! Not at all the same as saying that the recent high latitude tree-ring density variations have diverged from the instrument record and _failed to capture the recent temperature rise_, and then explaining why this divergence is considered to be recent and hasn’t occurred in the past.
If tree-ring density paleoclimate reconstructions are robust, I think the divergence problem should have been mentioned and accounted for in TAR 3, rather than simply eliminating it from the graph and making a very oblique reference to it in the text. if the reconstructions are dubious, then you have to bite the bullet and accept that trees are not reliable thermometers. Stick to ice cores and boreholes and use isotope ratios from tree rings rather than width/density.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/93 "2010-03-05T01:08:04Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> Thanks. If you have access to that reference, could you possibly clarify something for me? On what grounds it is believed that that this reduced sensitivity is purely a recent phenomenon, and not intermittent throughout the whole tree ring density record?
It’s a pretty short paper and I wouldn’t say it addresses that question directly in a lot of detail. Here is a section that addresses it to some degree, at least in regards to a specific mechanism:
> [@](#):
>
> The positive linear thermal response of the trees may break down above some absolute threshold, perhaps with lower soil moisture exerting increasing stress at a number of sites13. However, the fidelity of the long-term growth response to the relatively high temperatures in the middle part of the century would imply the need for a concomitant lowering of soil moisture levels over very widespread areas during recent decades. There is little evidence that this has occurred in the regions represented by these trees14,15. Also the maintenance of high positive interannual temperature correlations during recent decades, argues against a simple soil-moisture-related explanation of the reducing tree growth.
Also, the relation between this breakdown and the implications for reconstructions are complex. I agree that if such a breakdown did occur in the past, then there is the potential to underestimate past warmth. On the other hand, they point out that if it didn’t and if any part of the breakdown period is included in the calibration period, then there would be a tendency to actually magnify the proxies too much and hence overestimate past temperature variations.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/94 "2010-03-05T01:10:51Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> That’s pretty oblique! Not at all the same as saying that the recent high latitude tree-ring density variations have diverged from the instrument record and _failed to capture the recent temperature rise_, and then explaining why this divergence is considered to be recent and hasn’t occurred in the past.
Well, I don’t think it is **that** oblique. Perhaps it could have been clearer. However, I think the implications are made pretty clear from the first and concluding sentences of that paragraph:
> [@](#):
>
> Several important caveats must be borne in mind when using tree-ring data for palaeoclimate reconstructions.
> [@](#):
>
> Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in “multi-proxy” estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).
At any rate, I am glad that we are now arguing the details of exactly how the IPCC might have best presented these issues rather than debating claims that they published completely deceptive graphs or didn’t address the issue at all.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/95 "2010-03-05T01:52:03Z")
By the way, [here](http://www.weissfluhjoch.ch/staff/paolo.cherubini/pdf/DarrigoetGlobalPlanCh.pdf) is a recent paper on the divergence problem that I found. It talks some (e.g., starting on p. 10) about the evidence that we have that the divergence is unique to the current period…although admittedly the strength of that evidence decreases as one goes back far enough to get all the way through the MWP and there are other possible issues as well, as there almost always are in the tree ring proxy temperature reconstructions.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/96 "2010-03-05T03:11:50Z")
> [@jshore](#):
>
> By the way, [here](http://www.weissfluhjoch.ch/staff/paolo.cherubini/pdf/DarrigoetGlobalPlanCh.pdf) is a recent paper on the divergence problem that I found. It talks some (e.g., starting on p. 10) about the evidence that we have that the divergence is unique to the current period…although admittedly the strength of that evidence decreases as one goes back far enough to get all the way through the MWP and there are other possible issues as well, as there almost always are in the tree ring proxy temperature reconstructions.
This is not directed at you, but what you are saying here reminded me of why I got sucked into these discussions.
This was the item that shows me why is that many deniers hate the ones doing reconstructions.
Thanks to early reconstructions we got the concept of a medieval warming period, in those early reconstructions (IPCC 1990) it looked like that medieval warming was as warm or warmer than today, and there was much rejoicing among skeptics, pseudo-skeptics and deniers. Because it could mean that today’s warming was natural (There are other more important reasons why the current warming is not natural and it does not depend on proxy reconstructions, but never-mind)
However, it was suspected that the early reconstructions looked at samples that were too narrow in scope (mostly samples from England and northern Europe). Later and more detailed reconstructions were made (that included more samples and regions) and did not depend just on tree rings (1998), they showed that the medieval warming was not as big as before. Skeptics acknowledged the evidence, pseudo-skeptics have not learned about the progress and deniers continue to cry foul to this day. (Their current solution is to play to the refs)
The harder contrarians continue to complain about the evidence from tree rings, the more doubts they logically should be getting about the medieval warming period. If the tree evidence is shot down, it leads also to shot down or to minimize one important bit of evidence for the medieval warm period, what drives me nuts is that contrarians never seem to get this.
[http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/24/vrKfz8NjEzU](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/24/vrKfz8NjEzU)
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2010, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/97 "2010-03-05T06:34:12Z")
I have high hopes for isotope ratio testing of tree rings: (PDF)
[http://www.arctic.ucalgary.ca/main/documents/media\_release\_pdfs/Analysis%20of%20isotopes%20in%20tree%20rings%20can%20reveal%20past%20climate%20events.pdf](http://www.arctic.ucalgary.ca/main/documents/media_release_pdfs/Analysis%20of%20isotopes%20in%20tree%20rings%20can%20reveal%20past%20climate%20events.pdf)
With any luck this technique will give results independent of divergence, precipitation, CO2 fertilisation or ozone.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038.md?page=4)