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.
Sorry, your attempt at playing the role of the objective "wait and see" reserved thinker is a failed attempt. You see, when we were attempting to provide discussion on this long before this incident, the arrogance from you and your supporting crowd was unsurpassed. The attacks and calls of "denial" were screamed from the roof tops. The arrogance in responses and constant questions to intelligence were deafening.
Children is how they acted, they haven't earned back the respect of being considered adults when they approach this information in the same arrogant and ignorant manner they did before.
That is, you have been measured and have been found wanting. Don't get angry at me for being duped. That is something you need to reconcile with yourself.
Nah. I'll be among the first to condemn them, when and if it's proven. Sorry to burst your bauble, but even with your amazing intellect, you haven't convinced me. I am not stonewalling. I am indeed a wait and see type.
"provide discussion"? They were immediately hostile and assumed the end "truth" the entire time. They also assumed the motives of all claimants and marginalized anyone who put any stock in it as sheep. Discussion my a$$. You must be pulling that out of the same dictionary you're pulling your definition of "context" from. If anyone acted like children, it was (and is) the deniers.
But hey, I'm not one to stand in the way of people who seem to be compensating for something by waxing smug and avuncular on an internet forum, so carry on professor.
Maybe, in a week or two, I will be feeling generous and take you off the ignore list again. Probably not. People who operate under the illusion they hold all the cards, all the time, bore me to death, and then some.
Obama's going ahead with committing the US to "substantial" emission cutbacks in Copenhagen "despite" resistance in Congress. Various estimates coming in for cost to taxpayers..from low of $173/year to over $3000/year.
So it's "Full Steam Ahead". These pesky little emails will not sway him it seems.
Obama to vow greenhouse emissions cuts in Denmark - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091126/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_copenhagen - broken link)
Nah. I'll be among the first to condemn them, when and if it's proven. Sorry to burst your bauble, but even with your amazing intellect, you haven't convinced me. I am not stonewalling. I am indeed a wait and see type.
When and if what is proven? Did you read some of these emails and documents? If the have massaged, changed and hidden the data the base their conclusions on, how can the conclusion be valid?
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
See the problem is that this is not about science. Until it is once again all attempts to do anything should be considered null and void. When someone can come up with indisputable, unaltered, beyond reproach, scientific evidence to support their claims, then and only then should we begin to talk about solutions. If man in their infinite wisdom (chuckle) thinks that they can stop nature from doing what comes natural, warming and cooling trends, we have truly grown too big for our britches and it is time for mother nature to show us once again who is boss.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
I followed your link and I don't know why you posted it. They make no attempt to adresss what was said other than deflect. In fact it is quite obvious that they did not have a leg to stand on and were at best lame in their attempt to deflect. What they did in reality was create more distrust. That is unless you have aready written off any chance at looking at both sides like they have obviously.
I followed your link and I don't know why you posted it. They make no attempt to adresss what was said other than deflect. In fact it is quite obvious that they did not have a leg to stand on and were at best lame in their attempt to deflect. What they did in reality was create more distrust. That is unless you have aready written off any chance at looking at both sides like they have obviously.
But people like ativar will stay with their sinking ship. Deflection is what they are best at.
Sorry, your attempt at playing the role of the objective "wait and see" reserved thinker is a failed attempt. You see, when we were attempting to provide discussion on this long before this incident, the arrogance from you and your supporting crowd was unsurpassed. The attacks and calls of "denial" were screamed from the roof tops. The arrogance in responses and constant questions to intelligence were deafening.
Children is how they acted, they haven't earned back the respect of being considered adults when they approach this information in the same arrogant and ignorant manner they did before.
That is, you have been measured and have been found wanting. Don't get angry at me for being duped. That is something you need to reconcile with yourself.
Don't waste your time Nomander. Me thinks ativar has a dog in this hunt and probably is making money off the whole global warming debacle. Anyone, ANYONE that reads those emails with all of their admission to twisting data to suit their own agendas and comes on here to defend them either has serious comprehension issues or they have money at stake.
Go ahead, keep posting your drivel and raising this thread to the top of the forums yankers.
I wouldn't get all up in arms over the existence of the "hide the decline" comment in the code, as I understand it that was used for divergence in the tree ring data which is controversy itself. Certainly they would want a way to be able to adjust for it even for experimental purposes so you should expect such a function to be available. The bigger questions there would be was it used for published material and if so was it documented that it was.
This is going to take many months to sort out, I'd suspect over the next year many revelations will surface, all not good for the people at CRU.
Can't wait to hear the explanation for the above email.
Another; Is that HOCKEY STICK Mann?
Hello!!
I am not sure if anyone posted this but it is interesting. I have actually spent too much time reading these emails but from what I read only the dimmest of the dim can't see the obvious that this is not about science but $$$ and some stupid people's agenda. This is pathetic.
Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
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.
