--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG" <wgm4u@> wrote: > > > > http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ > > Sorry, but that's a highly misleading and most > likely deliberately disinenuous editorial. > > The much-quoted "trick of adding in the real temps to > each series ... to hide the decline" is perfectly > innocuous. "Trick" refers to a neat way of handling > something; and the data that's being "hidden" is > widely known and has been since 1998. It's an apparent > minor anomaly that nobody quite understands yet, but > it isn't anywhere near enough to warrant throwing out > the entire thesis. But when this anomalous data isn't > "hidden," it tends to obscure the overall trend. > > So far, no "smoking gun" has been found in these > hacked emails that would cast doubt on the theory of > anthropogenic global warming. They *do* raise > questions about the unwillingness of the scientists > involved to release all their data and methodology. > But to claim this means there's a conspiracy to hide > fraud at this point makes even less sense than to > claim there was a conspiracy to hide the Bush > administration's participation in 9/11.
It only proves that it's *junk science*, more research is required....time to go back to the drawing board, sorry! The research has been *contaminated*, at least in this case! Objectivity has been compromised leaving it impotent, that's the real damage! Doesn't necessarily mean global warming may not be occurring, maybe due to sun spots? Just the CO2 theory has been damaged due to apparent bias among *scientists*, (so-called).
