--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" <wg...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > > > http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ > > > > Sorry, but that's a highly misleading and most > > likely deliberately disinenuous editorial. > > > > The much-quoted "trick of adding in the real temps to > > each series ... to hide the decline" is perfectly > > innocuous. "Trick" refers to a neat way of handling > > something; and the data that's being "hidden" is > > widely known and has been since 1998. It's an apparent > > minor anomaly that nobody quite understands yet, but > > it isn't anywhere near enough to warrant throwing out > > the entire thesis. But when this anomalous data isn't > > "hidden," it tends to obscure the overall trend. > > > > So far, no "smoking gun" has been found in these > > hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of > > anthropogenic global warming. They *do* raise > > questions about the unwillingness of the scientists > > involved to release all their data and methodology. > > But to claim this means there's a conspiracy to hide > > fraud at this point makes even less sense than to > > claim there was a conspiracy to hide the Bush > > administration's participation in 9/11. > > It only proves that it's *junk science*
Proves nothing whatsoever of the kind. Proves nothing at all except that the scientists involved are way too protective of their data. >, more research is required As the scientists themselves would all agree. > ....time to go back to the drawing board, sorry! Nope, sorry. Nothing so far has been found in the hacked emails that calls the basic theory in question. > The research has been *contaminated*, at least > in this case! Nope, sorry. Nothing has been discovered so far in the hacked emails that "contaminates" the research. > Objectivity has been compromised leaving it impotent, > that's the real damage! It's certainly damaging to the scientists' reputations, but it don't say nuttin' so far about the objectivity of their research. <snip>
