Re: #622 Charles

“That’s a complete distortion of the article I posted, which contains copious evidence that McIntyre misrepresented Briffa — in the extreme.”

Me thinks you protest too much Charles. Here is another Briffa quote from the article.

“I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.”

Briffa refers to McIntyre’s “Valid Points” and acknowledges that if “remains to be established” if his analysis is more robust than Briffa’s. Briffa is not complaining about being misrepresented in the extreme, as you are. Briffa is unhappy that “Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats” but this is hardly a slapdown and rejection of McIntyres arguments.

“I invite anyone following this thread to read it and see just how ridiculous Alan the Brit’s claims are.”

I still doubt that you have actually read Steve McIntyre’s material. I invite your readers to look at one of his Yamal postings and then decide if there is a case to be answered that the Briffa and related analysis are flawed:

climateaudit.org

You are relying on hyperbolic commentary by third parties. Cut out the middleman and read McIntyre. McIntyre was a reviewer for IPCC AR4. The scientific community takes him seriously even if you don’t.