Traitors? Fraudsters? Hank, I'm surprised at you. One would think the CRU scientists had been caught red-handed indeed. And yet to date there's no evidence of fraud at all.
The two most hyped examples of alleged fraud (out of thousands of emails over years of time) are the code for a chart that calls for a significant artificial adjustment, and the 'trick' to hide a decline shown by tree ring data that did not match instrumental data. Neither example has panned out as anything even nearing scientific fraud.
The adjusted chart data was not used. The published version of the chart used the unaltered data. Furthermore the paper it was used in was specifically discussing the apparent unreliability of tree-ring data.
The the 'trick' to hide the decline was to leave off just the tail end of one (out of many) sets of tree ring data that the original researchers themselves noted back when the study was first published that they did not trust.
To date none of this information is controversial. The problems with the tree ring data has been know for over a decade. No-one anywhere has been able to show any fraud in any published report as a result of these emails. The CRU groups data and results line up well with the same from numerous other labs around the world. The data is sound.
The smoking gun isn't just not smoking, it's not even there.
Yours warmly,
Scott LaMorte
PS please feel free to post this as a letter to the editor, minus my PS. Thank you!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html
0 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by
scott lamorte
on 12/19/2009 at 3:45 AM
Extra Extra!
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Re: “Higher Planes”
Traitors? Fraudsters? Hank, I'm surprised at you. One would think the CRU scientists had been caught red-handed indeed. And yet to date there's no evidence of fraud at all. The two most hyped examples of alleged fraud (out of thousands of emails over years of time) are the code for a chart that calls for a significant artificial adjustment, and the 'trick' to hide a decline shown by tree ring data that did not match instrumental data. Neither example has panned out as anything even nearing scientific fraud. The adjusted chart data was not used. The published version of the chart used the unaltered data. Furthermore the paper it was used in was specifically discussing the apparent unreliability of tree-ring data. The the 'trick' to hide the decline was to leave off just the tail end of one (out of many) sets of tree ring data that the original researchers themselves noted back when the study was first published that they did not trust. To date none of this information is controversial. The problems with the tree ring data has been know for over a decade. No-one anywhere has been able to show any fraud in any published report as a result of these emails. The CRU groups data and results line up well with the same from numerous other labs around the world. The data is sound. The smoking gun isn't just not smoking, it's not even there. Yours warmly, Scott LaMorte PS please feel free to post this as a letter to the editor, minus my PS. Thank you! http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html