Tree-Ring Global Warming: Paleo-Climate Scientists Do Their Best Imitation of 1980's "Cold Fusion"-Like Science

As the recent revelations keep developing in the tree-ring science scandal, it's becoming apparent that much of the global warming and climate change science suffers from a high level of bogosity, similar to the discredited "Cold Fusion" science fiasco. When reading the Wikipedia description......

of the cold fusion incident, one is struck at the weird similarities found in the fabricated science of climate 'alarmist' scientists:

• "Cold fusion refers to a proposed nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism offered to explain a group of disputed experimental results first reported by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons. Cold fusion, under this definition, was first announced on March 23, 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons reported producing nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium electrode. They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes....Enthusiasm turned to scepticism as replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts."

Unfortunately for the today's paleo-climate scientists, there field of science may definitely become the new "cold fusion" and it would be entirely self-inflicted. If the future credibility of their historical temperature reconstructions are desired, then at the time of future publication they should provide all raw data and software algorithms that were used to base their scientific conclusions on. This would allow other scientists and experts to conduct proper analysis and testing to determine if these paleo-reconstructions can actually be replicated using standard scientific and statistical techniques.

Hiding the tree-ring data from other scientists and refusing to release all information about how the data was processed, as has been the case in both the Yamal & Bristlecone tree-ring fiascoes, has been a public relations disaster for global warming alarmists. And certainly, this bogosity and non-scientific behavior has discredited any of the past studies these new cold fusionists were involved in (actually, why would anyone seriously believe any study by any scientist who was even marginally involved in these scandals?).

Gratuitous advice to aspiring paleo-climate scientists: pick your associations and associates carefully - it's your reputation and credibility at stake.