Skip to comments.E-mail furor doesn't alter evidence for climate change
Posted on 12/18/2009 9:46:15 AM PST by neverdem
I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested in the e-mails recently stolen from a climate research unit at a British university. But the messages do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.
The hacked e-mails have been mined for words and phrases that can be distorted to misrepresent what the scientists were discussing. In a Dec. 9 op-ed, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin argued that "The e-mails reveal that leading climate 'experts' . . . manipulated data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures." Yet the e-mail she cites was written in 1999, just after the warmest year ever recorded (1998) to that date. It could not possibly have referred to the claim that global temperatures have declined over this decade -- a claim that is false (the current decade, as has been recently reported, will go down as the warmest on record).
In one case, professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia refers to a "trick" regarding temperature data that he attributes to an article that co-authors and I published in the journal Nature in 1998. We showed one up-to-date temperature data set from thermometer measurements along with a longer data set, based on calculations from natural "proxy" records such as ice cores, corals and tree rings, that ended in 1980. The "trick" (by which scientists generally mean a clever solution, i.e., a "trick of the trade") was that...
The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the scientific case is clear. As world leaders work in Copenhagen to try to combat this problem, some critics are seeking to cloud the debate and confuse the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Like Michael E. Mann. I'll give him credit for being bold. He failed to mention his elimination of the Medieval Warmng Period and the Little Ice Age on his infamous "hockey stick" graph.
Hey, where is the BS alert?
Yeah! I believe him /s
Notice how Michael Mann addresses himself to criticism made by a politician rather than criticisms made by his fellow scientists? If that doesn't show that the AGW Theory is a political movement first-and-foremost, I don't know what does.
Okie dokie. Your mother must have been the most gullible person in the world for you to think this explanation makes sense.
That makes as much sense as saying catching people leaving your driveway with burglar tools does not prove they broke into your house even though everything you own has just been stolen.
“Mr. Mann, would you like another glass of this nice Kool-aid?”
None needed. He refers to "scientists," which is just another word for "charlatan."
Your mentally unstable and racist not to believe../s
I guess that you need to be a professor (or a Democrat) to lie with a straight face. The so-called "trick" referred to in the email has been convincingly shown to have been intentional fraud, and not the innocuous little "trick of the trade" that Mann falsely claims.
I didn't read the article beyond the excerpt - does he go on to claim that "hide the decline" is just scientist-speak for "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?
Show me the raw data...oh wait!
[[But the messages do not undermine the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.]]
Actually, yeah they do undermine the scientific case, however, the emails aren’t even the most damning evidence AGAINST the case that man is to blame- the code used in the computer models is the most damning- because it was fraudulent- the emails simply back up the FACT that htis whole cimate change fraud is just that- a premeditated fraud which ALL the scientyists involved in the scam KNEW full well and tried to hide
The writer of this article in Wapo is either stunningly ignorant, or just plain incompetent- tryign to continue his BS agenda i nthe face of such overwhelming evidnece AGAINST the claim that man is to blame- He shoudl be fired for journalistic incompetence
E-mail evidence doesn’t alter furor for climate change - fixed it.
He’s right! The climate scientists altered the evidence!
Is that raw data? Or data which have been run through the program?
It could not possibly have referred to the claim that global temperatures have declined over this decade -- a claim that is false (the current decade, as has been recently reported, will go down as the warmest on record).
Release the raw data, show us how you massaged it to come to these consclusions, please.
Merely stating something doesn't make it fact.
Warming and cooling are a completely natural process, Michael. None of my money is required.
Where is Dan Rather????
His explanation is that it is shorthand for omitting facts which were not reliable. Doesn't say why they didn't want to explain why they were not reliable. Doesn't say why the email didn't use words like "I don't want to mislead anyone with unreliable data" or at the very least "hide the bad data".
For me the word "hide" in any context regarding scientific reporting raises the impression that something is not quite right.
It’s in the byline: “Michael E. Mann” = “100% Pure BS.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.