Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
The data's only cooked if you don't understand what they mean when they say "trick" and "hide the decline" (hint, it's not what you would first think).
Plus there's other sets of independent data which say the same things.
The claim they're anxious about having statisticians examine their work is false, climate data was given blindly to statisticians (i.e. they weren't told the data was climate temperatures), and all the statisticians also found warming.
None of the emails actually have anything to do with the scientific results, and even if they did there's other data sets and such which are saying the same thing.
|
What data? They flushed it all down the toilet. It is GONE. NADA. NOT THERE.
All there's left is their "tricked-up" stuff.
And yes their e-mails DO have something to do with data and statistic results. Try reading the articles I posted.
Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.