NJ5 said:
"the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear." It doesn't look to me like they were really hiding anything, if this explanation is correct. Maybe "hide" was a poor choice of words? I'm not really sure, it's a bit confusing. But one thing which I do know is that someone should go through these mails and really read them in context before we all start jumping to conclusions. If it is true that they were deceiving people by manipulating data, I'm all for throwing them to the wolves.
|
Using hide for correct would be like using the term steal for bought.
I can't see how one would use such a term.
There is some interesting stuff from the small bit i've read.
For example someone who testified to the congress about climate change in the rockies saying his research was never meant to be "realistic" but internally cosnistant (or so he thought) "What if-storylines".
The emails in general are pretty interesting to read though... but i am a bit of a science nerd.
