Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
Here's one example:
Writes Phil Jones: 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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. |
Example of what?
No one knows what the context of the messages are. At a glance to me that looks like someone discussing playing around with different variables in a model and the results generated whilst referencing a colleague's nature paper.
Trick doesn't neccesarily imply deception just a way of doing things.
And once published it's accepted good practice to share the model and data set for review should it be requested.
Not saying there is not any wrong-doing just that people play about with and manipulate models all the time. The key thing is transparency re. the model itself and the data entered into the model.
As you say it will be interesting to hear the accusations and defences of the authors.
And off topic a bit for an internet law question. If I download the e-mails is it considered an unlawful act? Like knowingly receiving stolen goods?
And UEA has confirmed the hacking incident.