#tiljanderconsensus

In retrospect, this has likely been a significant contributor to the Alice-in-Wonderland aspect of many of the blog-conversations that I have engaged in concerning Tiljander (at Lucia’s Blackboard, Collide-a-scape, Climate Audit, other places). If one looks at the analytical steps in reconstruction-building as a very complex black box, it’s reasonable to orient oneself in the debate on the basis of who one trusts. For skeptics, that might be Steve McIntyre and allies. For pro-Consensus advocates, it could be Gavin Schmidt.

Of course, if one has a clearer view of what goes into a proxy-based reconstruction, it’s more interesting to look at the substance being discussed, rather than at who is claiming what. 2+2=4, irrespective of whether it’s McIntyre or Schmidt making the assertion.

So, I think that some parties to this dispute have been pounding the table, drawing conversations away from “the facts” and “the law” (as it were). That’s not behavior aligned with scientific inquiry, though it’s commonplace in politics. Such conduct probably fall somewhere on a continuum between Postmodern and Cynical.