I think we need to confirm who emporer was talking to before a response is issued to emporer.
However to you Tinnitus since you believe that Emporer was responding to me (and he could well have?)
Peer reviewed papers that show proxy temperature data showing warmer period previously throughout Europe is now somehow a figment of a skeptics imagination because you dont like what it shows. I am sorry it hurts you so much.
Your opinion and support of Emporer 's assessment (in your mind) means you support the following.
That we should not assume that Dendrology and CO2 have a correlation. Well I 100% agree if using current methods of testing Co2.
The first paper just highlights (CONFIRMS) what temperature was like in the past. DO YOU DISPUTE THE PAPERS FINDINGS?
The second paper compares different methods of testing and charts the comparisons in a unitless comparison. They cannot quantify the temp due to the many different methods. Some may be anomalies and some may be actual 'C for the different regions.
But the testing methodology is not what I or the writers of the OP link are referencing. They are drawing to your attention the trend of temperature.and correlation to each testing method.
Well that is my interpretation of the second paper.
So of course I have just viewed 4 of the data references given in the second paper and I can confirm my assessment of the OP links is in fact correct.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
If you feel the authors of the papers are wrong than please explain why!
