it shows that scienctists are willing to ignore data in their papers: "Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down" but the dude clearly said he is removing data points i order to create the trend he wants. yes, a clever way of manipulating data to make it display the proper results.
Clearly they thought the IPCC was full of bunk and not about science. It's worth quoting their own words again... It doesn't necessarily make their research invalid, but it calls it into question by anyone capable of thinking critically. If they wish to validate their conclusions... the best way would be to allow third-parties to duplicate their conclusions. This is about saving the planet from certain destruction, right? Unfortunately when two Canadian scientists attempted to get their data, they refused, and possibly broke the law to avoid dissimination: Good science doesn't hide behind a cloak of secrecy. It doesn't need to.
""Anyway, I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down"" which part of removing data to alter the curve do you not understand?
That's not clear at all. And it's not a response to the question. Let me rephrase it. These emails show a couple scientists bitching in private emails about other scientists. It happens all the time. Now, the suggestion is that this somehow invalidates their scientific papers and that somehow this invalidates all of the science climate change. Show me evidence of this. The very idea is ludicrous. How would the emails of only a few researchers in a single institute invalidate the professional papers of hundreds of other experts. It doesn't. It only calls their 10-year-old informal email discussions into question. You seem disinclined to show where their scientific papers were in any way wrong. It's guilt by suggestion. If you can't attack their scientific conclusions, then attack their informal observations and suggest that it somehow make their published conclusions wrong. It just doesn't work that way. What are you referring to? If it's published then anyone can see their methodology, consider their results, and evaluate their conclusions. If the data hasn't been published yet, then no one has a right to it but it's authors until they publish. If the data is public then anyone can get access when the project is completed.
It's obviously an endorsement of it. You are really stretching now. Those quotes are nothing incriminating whatsoever. You only suggest it may be so.
Unsubstantiated conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever. More crying from those who can't attack the actual science.
That's a person bitching in an email to a colleague about what he might do. You fail once more to produce a paper where he has done anything inappropriate. It's like someone trying to judge you professionally by your cute posts on Tigerforums. You've said things like "all dirty foreigners should be killed". In your job as an Episcopal bishop that wouldn't seem right. But your snide internet remarks don't mean that you preach it as gospel and should be judged by it professionally.
