This comment by Judith Curry was made on another thread but strikes me as much more appropriate for this one. http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/13/tom-joe...

It seems we perhaps should be talking about this in conjunction with Gavin's original claim.

Michael,

You're waging the proxy battle with several assumptions: that "people harping on Tijander see themselves as being in a contest that they want to win." And on the other side, the people like you, who "resent this conversation taking place" on the assumption that it leads to additional policy delay.

Why can't this just be a science question unencumbered with people's assumed motives and unrelated to the policy equation? It may not be a science question you or Gavin feel is worth addressing anymore, but if it has no "import" to the larger AGW case, then what's the harm?

Willis, remember I asked that the personal grievances be checked at the door.

Toto,

Given the display of civility and the seeming forward motion of the Tiljander line of questioning--and Gavin's willingness to engage on some of these questions, I'm going to cease trying to dampen the dialogue. Some people seem to think this thread has the potential to advance the ball, so let's let it play out.

I'm doubtful Gavin agrees with this assessment but he's been kind enough to stop by and step into it a bit, even if just to reiterate his main point that there's nothing to respond to anymore. If y'all want try to convince him otherwise, knock yourselves out. Just please continue being polite.

But if this thread turns into tit-for-tat waged by proxies, I'm pulling up the carpet.

As an editor and writer I live by the maxim: is this advancing the story, or in this case, is this advancing the debate. Whether we can collectively succeed with this thread should become apparent very soon.

Tom Fuller, thanks for the compliments, but if we want make all parties feel welcome here, let's try and avoid even backhanded digs at others. I happen to think RC is as a valuable scientific forum that also serves a public interest. Does it work to everyone's liking? No, of course not. And being a tribal member of the journalistic establishment, I've taken a few potshots at them in recent months. But I'm not weighted down with any baggage regarding RC.

So in the spirit of making all parties feel welcome here, let's not dwell on one's one negative experiences with a member of said party.

Lastly, please note that I will be in a long NYU mtg from 4-7 (EST) and will be unable to approve comments that require moderation during this time. I'm still being held hostage to this comment software and am at my wits end with it. So bear with me for the next few days as I figure a better way towards improving this system or a return to the old one. Thanks, Keith

Judith,

This is an excellent point about the value of "citizen scientists." I learned about this first hand during my years as an editor at Audubon magazine. In fact, I wrote a number of "citizen science" related stories, esp about extraordinary birders who had keen identification skills and a deep knowledge of a species history, and who participated in conservation initiatives. Here is one story where the main character and talented birder is a pharmacist http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0212/citiz...

Of course, anyone familiar with Audubon's annual x-mas day birdcount http://www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/getinvolved.HTML

or Cornell's ornithology citizen science program
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/netcommunity/page.as...
will know what I'm talking about.

Lastly, let me also point out that official recognition of the contributions from citizen science is at hand: http://www.nyas.org/publications/Detail.aspx?cid=...

All,

The polarized dynamic that scac identifies (and which we all can agree on) is precisely why I've discouraged people from debating Tijlander in this particular thread. The issue has a Groundhog Day quality to it that Bill Murray would appreciate.

That said, I appreciate that everyone has remained civil, and can understand why the differing parties have a hard time accepting the other's explanation.

I think Judith Curry's latest comment raises some interesting related issues which I would encourage people to engage with. It would be great if Gavin could stick around and discuss with Judith this aspect of the debate.

Steve, this is the kind of poisonous speculation that I want to avoid on this blog: "since they came to the science with a political agenda..."

If you want to rebut Judith (or anyone you disagree with), do it with without speculating vaguely and broadly about motive. That is poisonous to constructive debate.

Judith, just to clarify: yes, it is totally fine to discuss "the social psychology of dendrochronology" here. Additionally, courtesy of Lucia, here is what I wondered what might serve as a useful entry for Gavin to address in a one-stop fashion the outstanding issues that Amac/Will et al can't get past. From Lucia upthread:

"If Gavin does not return to address the question of what happens if you take both flawed proxies out, (either telling Willis or Amac pointing to where a paper where this specific issues has been addressed or admitting that it has not been addressed and that Willis and Amac may well be correct), then this issue will be raised over and over again at blogs."

"As far as I can see, the difficulty with Gavin's response to the perpetual question is that it's possible he has never addressed it. But if my impression is wrong, it might be wise for him to explicitly state what happens if both flawed proxies are removed, and to point to the paper that discusses this."

What do you think of this request by Lucia? Not having followed these wars in detail, is it a repetitive request or a reasonable query?

Of course, ideally, Gavin could weigh in with what he thinks of it, too.

Judith, that seems fair enough to me. I suppose I'm just dubious that both sides can navigate around the landscape of mutual hostility and suspicion that this debate has come to inhabit.

And that is why I have been ardently trying to plow new ground (with a huge assist from you) for people to step on and have exchanges in good faith.

So I'm with you a 100 percent on trying to "figure out how to put this energy and expertise" of the blogosphere to productive use." I just think we need to see if we can establish some common ground before tackling these major bones of contention.

All that said, Amac is right to note that "Gavin has framed his issue in terms of the technical issue of Tiljander."

Amac also is right to say: "You could have written back to Gavin, 'How about if you make your point without making particular accusations surrounding a particular technical issue, which are sure to be seen as straw-man arguments and ad hominem attacks? I don't want this post to end up getting lost in the Tiljander thicket, so how about it?'"

But if Gavin didn't do that, he would have had to provide another example to make his point, so damned if you do, damned if you don't. He just happened to use an example that is sure to stir passions on all sides and it's those passions that I fear will overwhelm rational debate. I guess that's another way of me saying we have to bring the emotional level down a few notches before going head to head on this.

That's why I'm puzzled on how to get around this little predicament and am thinking that Lucia has offered a pathway. What do you think?

Steve, I understand that you feel compelled to respond to Amac, but this is precisely the sort of back and forth I wanted to avoid. It can just go on ad naseum.

But I'm willing to consider that Lucia may be on to something with all this mutual misperception stuff and I'm hoping that maybe Gavin can take that up and we can move on from there.