Slashdot Mirror

Climategate search engine: http://www.climate-gate.org/

You might want to look at

tag: gavin
tag: realclimate

This is utter nonsense, Climate data, unlike say Quantum string theory, does not require more than school mathematics and some (scientific) and other common sense.

Well, not as long as your goal is simply reporting the basic trends in an unbiased manner. If, however, you have a lucrative agenda you will need a Ph.D. to perform the sort of statistical gymnastics necessary to produce the intended result and later protect that result from scrutiny. Do such agendas exist outside of the minds of "deniers"? Let us look at the record:

Keith Briffa, 1999, while contributing to the IPCC report, responding to Michael E. Mann's complaints about discrepancies between dendrochronological analysis and other temperature reconstructions.

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.

How does Mann respond?

we don't have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the important details

That is just the sort of weasel word bullshit I have heard my entire life from people that want some inconvenient result papered over. Every "entrepreneur", every "manager", every authority I have ever encountered plays the same game; BEND IT UNTIL IT FITS. No Ph.D. is required to see clean through this obvious agenda driven bias.

Attempts to dilute the loss of credibility of UEA's CRU, its affiliates, and its legacy of climate research by claiming that all science is now suspect will get nowhere. Hard science isn't going to take a hit for the 45 year old UAE public university and its climate [pdf] marketing wing. The leaks merely confirm that climate science is a highly politicized, well funded arena of tightly controlled and carefully massaged "truth." A lot of us already knew this.

While it's always in fashion to assert that the public is too ignorant and distracted to make subtle distinctions, the reality is people know climate science is compromised by politics and instinctively discount its claims. Daily press releases from the UN et al. claiming the leak has no significance isn't going to fix this, either.

http://www.climate-gate.org/

Evidence cited by realclimate.org should no longer be considered admissible in this debate. The contributors at that site are not to be trusted. Click the link; read the correspondence of theirs that was leaked. They are not interested in science but rather pushing an agenda.

It's the content of the correspondence in question that makes the source unreliable. Please click the link and read up on the issue.