Paging Mike Mann – your dendrochronologist will see you now

Tom Nelson has another Climategate 2 email well worth reading

Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy

ClimateGate Email 1738

“However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, and the discipline has spilled over way outside of those bounds, to the point of absurdity.”

“What troubles me even more than the inexactness attending chronological estimates is how much absolute nonsense — really nothing but imaginative speculation — about the environment of the past is being deduced from tree rings and published in dendrochronology journals.”

“…but dendrochronology has persistently rejected walking the hard road, that of understanding the fundamental genetic and environmental factors controlling wood formation. As I see it, the peer review process in dendrochronology must be fundamentally flawed to allow such publications. Physiologist remain to build any real confidence in their ideas of how environmental factors influence tree ring formation, and dendrochronologists therefore are not at all justified in pretending that they do.

The bounds of dendrochronology will be extended, as will confidence in dendrochronological reports, when your group stops pretending that it knows the answers before it has done the needed research. Again, I am troubled by your group that it shows little humility, no genuine desire to discover the truth.”

The writer of this email:

UNB | Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management | Rod Savidge

Areas of expertise

Tree physiology

Wood anatomy

Plant

cell biology

==================================================

This, IMHO, is why Mann’s rendition of the hockey stick is unsupportable, its all speculation based. Anyone who knows Liebig’s Law understands this.

Mann’s tree reconstructions are known to be statistically crap, and even if they weren’t, the assumption that these trees primarily measure temperature is an absurd speculation.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kim2ooo

*Spanked*

Dr Mo

From a very aptly named Dr Savidge…
Future generations will refer to the act of being called academically to account as “to be savidged” 🙂

HarryG

Yet when these people try and speak up the response is inevitably “but he’s not a climate scientist”

Bloke down the pub

I was given A.W.Montfords ‘The hockey stick illusion’ for Christmas, a cracking good read for anyone who doesn’t have it already. What with that, and the above post,it’s hard to imagine how there’s anyone left in the world who doesn’t know that the hockey stick is a stinking crock of…

Alan the Brit

HNY everyone! I hope everyone who comments here had a wonderful, peaceful, & happy holiday season with their family & friends 🙂
This is a very interesting post, & has enlightened me further on tree ring data. It’s nice to see such forthright opinion being expressed to a colleague!!!!

kcom

Here’s my question: Did Rod Savidge ever say any of this out loud? Did he make his views known publicly?
I don’t know the answer to my question but I’ll make the general observation that it seems like too many scientists have been too quiet when they see the warmists trashing real science. Statistics and dendro would be two obvious areas. The consensus would seem a lot less consensusy if all of the objections to and problems with the shoddy science of the Team would be aired in public. It shocks me that they’ve gotten practically a free ride for 20 years. Other scientists need to stick up for their disciplines in public and call out shoddy science when it appears. The stakes are too high not to.

Roy Milner

Healthy skeptical opinion from a professional scientist, I bet that didn’t go down well at the time.
I’ve always thought that the climate science community have been using dendrochronology in much the same was as a drunk uses a lamp-post, more for support than illumination.

Dave N

Thwack!
Next up: Alarmists start investigating whether Savidge is connected to Big Oil.

RockyRoad

Like building a Caribbean Cruise Ship with ice blocks. What a fantastic sight–what a spectacular and inevitable demise.

oldseadog

Tree runs rings round Mann.
What a sap.
Sorry, it’s all the whisky at ne’re’day ……………………. .

Brian Johnson uk

All Warmists reading this will be doing so with their heads deeply buried in the sand!
Sadly no rebuttals will be seen because the Manns, Jones’ and Hansens are in denial in order to gain their beloved Grant monies.

Rhys Jaggar

Interesting that the recipient of the ire is the owner of a company, DendroPower, which develops software for modelling relationships between climate change and tree growth.
I wonder whether a few folks would comment on whether historical proxy data can distinguish between the following:
EXAMPLE:
Winter temperature 0C
Spring temperature 12C
Summer temperature 18C
Autumn temperature 10C
Average annual temperature 10C
and:
Winter temperature 4C
Spring temprature 10C
Summer temperature 16C
Autumn temperature 10C
Average annual temperature 10C.
if plant growth is affected by:
i. A need for winter cold to rechargethe batteries.
ii. A mild/warm spring to promote pollination
iii.A warm and sufficiently rainy summer to promote growth.
I am asking these questions not because I know the answers but because it is important to make folks aware if seasonal temperatures, as opposed to annual ones, are critical for growth; as well as seasonal, not annual, rainfall.
After all, if these spats are going to take place publicly, best if the contextual information is also made equally available, eh?

KV

MIchael Mann, Briffa and co.should have taken the legitimate criticisms by John L Daly of the Cook et al study of the Tasmanian Huon Pine as an early warning to be far more diligent and circumspect before they tried on their “hide the decline” Hockey Stick tree ring shenanigans!
“This CO2-enhanced growth is quite independent of temperature.
Personal communication with three of the authors, (Trevor Bird, 20-Jan-93, Mike Peterson and Brendan Buckley 24-Jan-93), confirmed that no allowance or correction had been made for CO2 enrichment. Cook et al attributed the recent huon pine growth entirely to greenhouse-induced warming and no part of their paper made any mention of the strong likelihood that the recent growth may have been caused wholly, or even partly, by increased CO2 fertilization from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The Cook et al study was interesting in it’s treatments of climates over the last 1,000 or so years, but by pandering to the global warming scare in such an unscientific manner, the rest of their work was largely overshadowed. It is not only the Cook team who lacked scientific rigour in their tree study (insofar as it related to the late 20th century), but part of the blame for such bad science should also attach to the reviewers of the paper and to the editors of `Science’ journal itself for accepting such fashionable, but also unsupported, claims so uncritically.”
http://www.john-daly.com/huonpine.htm

Mike the convict

Ouch. Spanked with a very big wood thing with leaves.
This has a ring of truth to it. Sorry. Bad pun.

Steve Keohane

It always seemed weird to me that the climate reconstructions I saw from 1960 until Mann et al showed an MWP and an LIA. Then Mann comes along with an entirely rewritten history of civilization, and no one is supposed to notice. I have been stunned by the accepting naivete of scientists who assume the peer review process was due diligence in vetting the rats from the system. Mann et al belong in prison.

Ken Hall

That is the central reason why the Hockey Stick Theory is utterly unsupportable. Trees != thermometers from the past. Additionally trees from one small location != representation of global conditions of climate.
The whole proxy temperature record taken from measuring tree rings is completely bogus and not even worthy of serious consideration as a high school science project. The fact that entire national budgets, at a time of USA + EU austerity, could be collapsed on the back of this crap is truly terrifying.
Are there any rational adults left? How have we become so dumbed down, and so passive as to have allowed these extremist reality deniers get a grip on power?

LearDog

Wow. Interesting find, thanks for bringing it to our attention: “Climategate 2 – the gift that keeps on giving… ;-D
So again – this is an answer expressed to a few people – but thereafter we’ve heard nothing in the public on this topic (the lack of a fundamental basis for these assertions) for whatever reason….. I wonder what this guy thinks now following release of these emails?
If there is even a half-decent journalist out there, here’s a great story… Just interviewing the guy would be a great start….

John Cooper

I seem to recall numerous comments here over the years questioning the validity of using tree ring width as a proxy for atmospheric temperature. Many commenters proposed that other factors were probably more important to the growth of a tree…like rainfall for example, or even wild animals relieving themselves on the base of the tree.

So what would we know?
“Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree” !……….
…………..So what would we know?

Ken Hall

After clicking on the link and reading the email thread, near the bottom is this chestnut from the alarmist,
“Surely that is a good thing to do, but while you are going about doing
>that, we have wonderful opportunities to help people manage our earth
>more kindly and realistically. We think these kinds of questions are
>equally important, if not more important as we are likely to destroy our
>planet unless we learn quickly what the trees have to say about our
>past. Even though you disbelieve that we can read the earth’s history
>from tree rings, we have our part to play in the scientific world. Yes
>we need to learn from people like you, but fortunately few scientists
>consider us as ignorant and out of communication with “true” science as
>you.”
Which basically means,
“No we haven’t done the actual experimental research and that would be neat, but there are other uninformed scientists who already believe our crap, so we do not have just justify ourselves to a real tree expert who can see through our crap.
Good day.”
The Hockey team should do jail time for fraud!

Nigel S

Man savaged…

To the tune of ‘Modern Major General’
By Gilbert and Sullivan (Pirates of Penzance)
I am the very model of a modern climatologist
I’m partly statistician, partly palaeo-phrenologist
I’ve temperature readings from thermometers coniferous
my data are the same (or not, well, maybe) as Keith Briffa has
I bought them from a bloke who brought them hotfoot from Siberia
and mixed them with some algae from the mud in Lake Superior.
When counting different isotopes I’m really in my element
and sucking up to journalists from Guardian Environment
I know what makes the treerings from Siberia to the Rockies tick
And I can make spaghetti and transform it to a hockeystick.
My data’s got dark matter that would shatter a cosmologist
I am the very model of a modern climatologist
H/T Geoff Chambers
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/9/the-modern-climatologist.html

Ouch!

Dave Salt

kcom (January 3, 2012 at 3:40 am) asked if dendrochronologists have ever openly criticized Mann.
Well, Steve McIntyre’s experience suggests they have not…
http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

Andy

This email could be hugely significant, as it blows away Mann’s hokey schtick in just a few sentences.
I hope someone could ask Savidge for his permission to shout his email from the rooftops – it needs to be sent to that useless idiot Chris Huhne for a start, as he’s determined to ruin our economy here in the UK with his useless ‘green’ initiatives.
Oh, one more thing: c’mon Rattus, how can you wriggle out of this slaying of The Team(tm), their useless ‘science’, and therefore the whole AGW crock?

Don Keiller

I too am a plant physiologist by training and raised these issues back in 2009
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6363
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
Dear Professor Briffa, my apologies for contacting you directly, particularly
since I hear that you are unwell.
However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much
discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a
number of key papers by you and co-workers.
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the
“Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.
There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers,
further detailed explanation is urgently required.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller.

Frank K.

HarryG says:
January 3, 2012 at 3:24 am
Yet when these people try and speak up the response is inevitably but he’s “not a climate scientist.
These days, I would take “not being a climate scientist” as a compliment…
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that massive government climate “science” funding will continue into 2012 in a big way, as described in detail in this government document.
Of note is that NASA by far gets the most Climate Ca$h(tm) – $1.33 BILLION(!!) – which represents a 20% increase over 2010.
Again, please remember this when you are asked to pay higher energy prices, fund “green” initiatives, and make sacrifices in the name of “global warming”. The climate scientists and green activitsts are NOT the ones who are sacrificing…
Happy New Year!

In my opinion Climategate 2.0 is even more explosive than the original. I wonder if we’ll ever get the remaining emails un-encrypted? And will they blow the lid off completely? One lives in hope.

Mark T

Hardly a surprise. I have been saying the same thing for years, as have others. Steve M. chose to concentrate on the statistical manipulations themselves, admittedly more interesting than simply refuting assumptions (and, mathematically, more convincing as refutation), though always admitted that such things were important, too. There are so many things wrong with the treemometer approach it is difficult to choose a starting point for fear you may miss something even better.
Mark

Dave N says:
January 3, 2012 at 3:46 am
Thwack!
Next up: Alarmists start investigating whether Savidge is connected to Big Oil.
===============
No they won’t. Why would an investigation be needed? They operate from the assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is connected to Big Oil, it becomes the burden of the individual to prove the negative.

treegyn1

For the sake of this discussion, I consider only tree growing in temperate and boreal zones. Ring width is primarily influenced by available resources during the growing season and density of stocking. When resources are plentiful (but not excessive), trees generally grow better = more radial growth. The key resources are soil moisture, nutrient availability, solar radiation, photoperiod, and length of the growing season (or frost-free days).
Density of stocking is also important. As a stand of trees grows, individuals increasingly come into competition with one another, ultimately causing a slowdown to near shutdown of radial growth. Carried to the extreme, stands become moribund and decadent and thus, more susceptible to environmental stresses such as drought. This is clearly what we are seeing in the large areas of lodgepole pine in the inter-mountain west, hit hard by bark beetles. The decadence of these stands IS largely the result of mans (in)activities – the failure of federal agencies (Forest Service and BLM) to manage the forests under their “care.”
Soils are also important. Trees growing on poor soils (lacking depth, nutrients, e.g.) will never have wide rings, although there can be some minimal year to year variation because of changes in available resources. Trees growing on good soils will show more variation in ring width, again because of the variation in availability of seasonal resources.

artwest

Bloke down the pub says:
“I was given A.W.Montfords ‘The hockey stick illusion’ for Christmas, a cracking good read for anyone who doesn’t have it already. ”
——————————————–
Seconded. It’s a page turner even for those of us whose eyes glaze over when the numbers with funny squiggles appear.

Ken Hall says:
January 3, 2012 at 4:43 am
After clicking on the link and reading the email thread, near the bottom is this chestnut from the alarmist,
“Surely that is a good thing to do, but while you are going about doing
>that, we have wonderful opportunities to help people manage our earth
>more kindly and realistically.
==============================
Ken,
What it actually says is – “we don’t really care that our study is nonsense because it can be used to do a good thing and that overrides concerns about veracity or the validity of the science behind our study.” In short, the end justifies the means.
It’s the same nonsense I hear from lots of my friends when I show them evidence that the AGW thesis is flawed. “We don’t care if it’s true or not, as long as it allows us to accomplish something in the best interests of all of us its okay for them to falsify the science and lie about it.”

As a fellow CA ‘lifer’ Mark T, same here
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/23/latitudinal-treeline/#comment-82885
KevinUK

Ken Hall

Re: Don Keiller says:
January 3, 2012 at 5:51 am
Dr Keiller, did you ever get a response from Professor Briffa?

Gary

This is another example of the debate that always occurs between basic research and applied science. The problem comes from the isolation of disciplines from each other and that applied science must rely on disciplines in which has limited expertise. The solution it seems is multi-disciplinary projects rather than the assumption that you know enough of the basic science to get by. The biologists (and statisticians) should have been been collaborating with the climatologists from the beginning.

By assuming a linear relation of tree growth to temperature, the inverse model damps out any past temperatures warmer than the calibration period.
Loehle, C. 2009. A Mathematical Analysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change 94:233-245
available here:
http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3273

I think its time to move this treemometer from an indictment of the individual, to an indictment of the journals who published them. Mann knows what he did was a buggery of math and science, as does the other cloners of such garbage. We know it, they know it, they know we know it….. there isn’t much to do with that except point and laugh.
But, now, I think we’ve enough to move this forward as an indictment of the various journals, and most importantly, an end to the belief that published material is a euphemism for truth.

James of the West

I have said this before on other sites when comments about tree rings come up
Trees grow fastest at an optimal combination of factors – some things to consider:
1 Rainfall regularity (time interval) and quantity. (do dendrochronologists assume this is constant year to year?)
2 Moderate temps give optimum growth of tree rings (not too hot and not too cold – if it is colder than optimum then tree ring growth is slowed – if it is warmer than optimum then ring growth is slowed compared to ideal temps usually because of reduced moisture availability)
3 Nutrient Levels (did an animal defacate regularly on this specific tree? did an animal die under this tree? Does Mann know which trees had this activity and which didn’t 500 years ago?
4 Sunny days (opportunity for photosynthesis but not too many in a row to deny the plant moisture!!!)
5 position within the forest and genetics of the individual tree, some grow fat others frow tall and thin genetically better.
6 exposure to pests and tree feeding animals ().
7 exposure to disease
8 death of one tree due to some factor above or damage and loss of the top of a tree due to wind damage or if an animal eats the top of the tree or strips many leaves off branches it will impact growth of both the attacked tree and nearby trees by exposing the competing nearby trees to additional sunlight and increases growth rate of those other trees
9 micro geography – a natural small depression of say 2ft diameter and 6 inches depth in the ground will pool moisture after rainfall. Trees near this will do better than trees on a mound in dryer areas in the growth season.
I hope those analysing tree rings as a temperature proxy took all those factors into account for every ring year of the tree in question and not just “temperature” !!!!!! I cant see how they did it. I manage research within a forest industry.
In one forest you can have dramatic variation in tree ring growth from tree to tree right next to each other due to all of the variables. Lots of noise, I am very skeptical of this as a good proxy of temperature unless you assume everything else is steady state.

Dean

Pure pwnage is more like it!!!

Peter Miller

I am amazed, I had not realised that dendrochronology had become such a ‘precise science’!
The following website has lots of pretty pictures of tree rings: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/pub/dpl/
One of these pictures
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/Site/images/Thumbs/zuni%20douglas-fir.jpg
is accompanied by the comment: “Note how very sensitive the ring widths are of this species, despite its young age. indicating it is ideal for reconstructing climate.” Well, I can see there are a few years that were obviously hotter and/or wetter than most others, but I am not sure what else I can tell from this picture.
I started to become intrigued and then found this chart on tree rings from the ACIA (described below). The good Dr Mann must have missed it or if he didn’t, he then used his unique system of mathematics to destroy a very obvious MWP.
http://www.eoearth.org/files/188401_188500/188417/figure14-13_long_term_changes_tree_ring_growth.jpg
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), to evaluate and synthesize knowledge on Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) is an international project of the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), to evaluate and synthesize knowledge on climate variability, climate change, and increased ultraviolet radiation and their consequences. The results of the assessment were released at the ACIA International Scientific Symposium held in Reykjavik, Iceland in November 2004.
The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America. The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) is a non-governmental organization that facilitates cooperation in all aspects of arctic research in all countries engaged in arctic research and in all areas of the arctic region. climate variability, climate change, and increased ultraviolet radiation and their consequences. The results of the assessment were released at the ACIA International Scientific Symposium held in Reykjavik, Iceland in November 2004.
The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum. The members are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States of America. The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) is a non-governmental organization that facilitates cooperation in all aspects of arctic research in all countries engaged in arctic research and in all areas of the arctic region.

Stephen Pruett

I agree with almost all of these comments, but what about the response that reconstructions done using other proxies and excluding tree rings give similar results? Is that really the case, or just more obfuscation?

Mike Bentley

I’ve been following the AGW, Tree ring, CO2, Hansen-Mann et al discussion for a bunch of years now, and the same question keeps popping up. “Why do so many people still believe in CO2 AGW?”
I think I may have a similar case that may enlighten.
Pluto is no longer a planet. NASA made the announcement two or so years ago. The story behind the announcement is quite interesting. It starts with the discovery of Pluto in the 1930’s. At that time the optical equipment was not as refined as today so the visual picture of Pluto suggested a small planet some 4K miles in diameter. What astronomers didn’t know is they were seeing an image of both Pluto and Charon, Pluto’s moon as a single object. The “true” picture wasn’t found until the 1950’s when better telescopes allowed the two to be seen as inidviduals, not a single object. Pluto’s 1.4K mile diameter is just too small to be a planet.
OK, so now the soup really gets hot. NASA tries to get the word out, but elementary school teachers gave a huge pushback because they’d been teaching their students about a 9 planet solar system for some 20 years. It took another 40 some-odd years for the “official announcement” to be heard in schools throughout the nation.
Same is true here. Science and Social Studies teachers have been telling their students about man’s dirty CO2 habits. The internet’s ability to trumpet anything, true or not, adds to the fray. Evidence of truth is considered by most people (not trained in science) to be a numbers argument. The largest number of posts wins. Coupled with Hansen’s unprofessional antics and the Hollywood star application, the results are in. AGW wins.
Simplistic, sure but I think it gets at the heart of the belief issue.
Mike

Rob Potter

James Sexton says:
January 3, 2012 at 6:39 am
……….
“But, now, I think we’ve enough to move this forward as an indictment of the various journals, and most importantly, an end to the belief that published material is a euphemism for truth.”
An excellent point, made in the email quoted above (as a comment on peer review, but could be seen in a wider context) and illustrated many times by the press releases journals put out prior to publication. In the same way that TV news is now just a ratings competition, “scientific” journals are now competing for headlines to sell advertising.
I probably sound like an old fogey, but it wasn’t all that long ago when I was doing my PhD that a journal article really felt like an achievement – now it just feels like a scam. I have lost faith in the system of science – and it will take a lot to restore it!

Green Sand

Drs Biffa, Osborn and Melvin are working through a £230k NERC grant on:-
“The Dendroclimatic Divergence Phenomenon: reassessment of causes and implications for climate reconstruction”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm
More detailed description of the project can be found here:- http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/
Scroll down through “Current Projects”
The project is due to finish in 2012, the project description says May, the grant description states October.
The findings should be of interest to an ever growing number of interested parties.
For info:-
NERC – Natural Environment Research Council – http://www.nerc.ac.uk/

If Climate science had true peer review (not pal review), there would be no scandal. Of course there would be no hysteria either.

Savidge also wrote similar comments in 3219.txt:

I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology “research”.

Steve Keohane

Stephen Pruett says: January 3, 2012 at 6:51 am
I agree with almost all of these comments, but what about the response that reconstructions done using other proxies and excluding tree rings give similar results? Is that really the case, or just more obfuscation?

Here is a non-tree ring reconstruction by Craig Loehle with Mann’s tree rings overlaid, without the thermometer record.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2q3arlw.jpg
If you go to Climate Audit, you can follow the history of this cluster f—. Not only did Mann mangle stats, he obviously cherry-picked the most unreliable samples, and did whatever it took to torture out the results he got. I suspect an honest selection of tree rings would give a more honest result, though with its own reliability issues. Trees aren’t thermometers, they do record good vs. bad growing conditions.

dp


It looks to me like both parties were hitting hard. It isn’t possible from the message to know who is more right. I didn’t see Rod as being the spanker – Harold kicked his butt pretty well down in the thread.

davidmhoffer

An excellent refutation of a ridiculous notion that the history of the world is written in tree rings. Everyone with any familiarity with history knows that there are other methods for understanding both the past and the future that have just as ligitimate basis in science as the reading of tree rings. These methodolgies, which have not a few decades of active use in providing people with the information with which to make informed decisions, but centuries, have been callously shunted aside and consigned to the trash bin of history in order to serve a pre-determined agenda. Perhaps now that the reading of tree rings has been exposed for what it is, those more ligitimate methods with their longer history will see a resurgance.
Tea leaves for example…