Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Realclimate.org adressed this issue and has shown that these e-mails were taken out of context. It explains the 'hide the decline' part as well. The only thing that this whole thing proved is how easy it is to spread misinformation when people have no understanding of what they are talking about. In any case, if old e-mails that were taken completely out of context is what the skeptics have to resort to now, I don't think they have much of a case.
Quote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from
what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
PhD needs re-assessing?
Apparently, none of Michaels' thesis examiners noticed this. We
are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation
by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance.
Surely such a blatant confession should be widespread news instead of being confined to the city data forums don't you think?
It is a fact the cabal has tried to control the peer review process, by intimidating and threatening publishers to shun those papers of the "deniers". Their peer review "group" consists of this cabal and their outside "sympathizers".
I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
It is the right wing web sites doing all this, presumably in the build up to Copenhagen.
Hi Phil, is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases - I thought we'd moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew
Thanks for those links. Interesting to read, but (un)fortunately none of them point toward any sort of conspiracy plot.
Quote:
It is a fact the cabal has tried to control the peer review process, by intimidating and threatening publishers to shun those papers of the "deniers". Their peer review "group" consists of this cabal and their outside "sympathizers".
Who are 'the cabal' and their 'sympathizers' and why is it a fact?
Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board... What do others think?
So...the cabal conspires to shut out those researchers they don't agree with and then put some pressure on the editorial boards.
Quote:
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
And CRU did indeed see to it that Storch resigned.
Quote:
Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'.
Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.
I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people.
Just as we all thought - the cabal does not want debate.
Thanks for those links. Interesting to read, but (un)fortunately none of them point toward any sort of conspiracy plot.
Who are 'the cabal' and their 'sympathizers' and why is it a fact?
There is a difference between conspiracy and fraud.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
