This is just a short comment.
I’ve put up two posts now discussing certain analytical problems in dendroclimatology. But I don’t want people to get the wrong impression or get carried away on this topic, given how much animosity and generally strange and counter-productive discussions that exist on the internet surrounding this field. There are many people in this field who are very well aware of a number of existing problems, and of steps needed to be taken to lessen/correct them. For example, I linked to this white paper by Keith Briffa and Ed Cook in part two (but that was a long post and the link is way down there so people might well have missed it). Please read that–it’s short and easy to read.
That paper is the only one linked to on the front page of the NOAA Paleo Tree Ring page, which means they have chosen to place it in clear view of those retrieving tree ring data. There are also a number of papers in the tree ring literature discussing various analytical issues in great detail (particularly with respect to calibration). Furthermore you can pick
almost any field in science and find some kind of serious analytical problem exhibited by some group of researchers somewhere at some time (including ones that are worse than those in dendroclimatology). So it’s wise to keep these issues in perspective. The point of discussing problems is so that they can be better understood and addressed; to go beyond that is to enter into the counter-productive. Lastly, I do my best to be conscientious and get things right, but I’m far from infallible–if I say something wrong or questionable, raise it and let’s discuss it.