Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
cleaner post – sorry.
The way I read the peer review emails is that these scientists tried to prevent a formerly respectable “peer reviewed” journal from publishing crap science that would never pass review by bona fide reviewers. Not because the submitted paper was dissenting from theirs, but because the dissenting views were based on bad science. In other words, the review process had broken down at GRL, which was now going to publish bogus results for political reasons and these “respectable” scientists were trying to stop it. They were trying to uphold the peer review process by not allowing a bunch of charlatans to take over a journal, publish garbage, and then allow the denier crowd to claim victory (a “peer reviewed” publication).
The FOI requests were for data that they received conditionally from another agency and were not at liberty to release. Until the originating agency removed that condition, they could not release that data – only a tiny percent of the data they used. All the rest of the data (98% or more) is publicly available.
As for the “trick” used to “hide” the temperature data: Replace “trick” with “clever technique” and “hide” with “correctly calibrate”. The sentence is talking about a technique for mapping the data correctly, not fudging the results.
You need to take these emails in the context of what they are referring to, and you are not. Not that I expect you to.
Cherry-picked, these emails may look bad, but you lot have still failed to come up with a better explanation for the data – almost all of which is publicly available. You can shout “you’re wrong” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Go grab the data yourself and show us your better theory that accounts for it. And I don’t mean one tiny and incorrect result published in a suspect journal, I mean a real theory/model that accounts for the data and backs up your rants. Please!
But I guess since you can’t reasonably debunk the science, you’re left to try and malign the scientists. It’s so sad that enough politicians are listening to you that it is delaying the real changes that need to be made to stop things from going from bad to worse.
And all your talk of global cooling in the past 10 years… What a hoot. 8 of the hottest years on record (globally) have occurred in the past 10 years. You think because 1998 was abnormally hot (due to el nino) or that 2005 was hotter than the past 4 years that we’re in a cooling trend? Not so – that’s just bad science, once again. Go look up the data on Nasa’s web site. There’s a nice graph dating back to 1880. That’s “global” temperature by the way, not US temperature (for you deniers that like to claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record). You can also get the tabular data and make the plot yourself. And that is with the correction for an error found a year or two ago that you lot like to go on about. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. This is data from NASA, which is in line with data from the CRU. You can see the trend and that year to year variation is high. But claiming we’re in a cooling regime based on this data is a joke – look up the difference between climate and weather please. Write back when you can account for this trend without AGW. I know the Earth’s climate changes over longer time frames, but guess what, this rise cannot be accounted for by any other factors that are currently known. When you find said factors, let me know. I’d be much much happier if we didn’t have a real climate change problem.
