Oli

Can't believe you are all still arguing about this.....

6 years ago I was single, in a job I hated, in a country I was bored with. Then I moved to San Francisco, the job I had previously hated became more interesting, and most life-changingly of all got married to a beautiful, wonderful girl who makes my life a constant joy. It's been a blast so far, but since then I haven't had much time to post around here, although I occasionally take a look. Rare is the time I can laze around reading forums these days- I have to do it at work instead. It's good to see you guys doing well. Maybe I might come back more often.

At this moment I am paralysingly drunk due to it being Friday. Tomorrow is my company Xmas Party as well so you''re going to have to indulge me until next week I'm afraid. I hope you'll understand. Scientific analysis is way beyond me right now...

Hence the reason I suggest reading the entire comments section which is a debate between both sides of the fence. But I'm sure you've already done that and read the full thread of messages surrounding each hand-picked quote. If not I suggest you do your research before you claim I'm being naieve (sic).... I'm not particularly fussed about defending the emails because it doesn't make any difference to either side. Those who don't believe AGW such as yourself will paint any explanation as an "excuse"- the word you yourself use above. Those who do believe in AGW will accept such explanations as being more likely than a shadowy conspiracy perpetrated for decades for no discernible reason. You see it as a victory; I see it as an irrelevance. Time will tell who is right but it's a political question rather than a scientific one. The only question arising from these emails is that of the FOI. Whilst it does not require Jones et al to reveal their data the public perception is that it should. Their perception is that it shouldn't. The CRU have set up an independent enquiry into whether any wrongdoing occurred which is their only real option, although I can't really see what good it would do since even if it exonorated those involved it would be decried as a whitewash. And so it goes on.

I may as well start with the first one. The criticism of the use of a "trick" is pretty disingenuous IMO. I have a trick for doing long division in my head- that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. I used to use a trick I was taught by a colleague to analyze NMR spectrums. It doesn't mean my results are invalid- it's just one of a number of popssible meanings of the word "trick". The divergence problem referred to in the email as I understand it is not a new thing- it has been noted for decades. This paper has a few suggestions about what may cause it: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf But the science here is fairly irrelevant- the email isn't telling us anything new about the divergence problem or that there was any subterfuge. It's poorly and lazily worded but it's important to keep in mind that these emails were not intended for publication- there was thus no need for a clarification on the use of the words "trick" (to mean useful method) and "hidden" (i.e. removed due to the divergence problem). Therefore the question becomes not "why has the data been hidden" (since it was not), but "if divergence means tree rings are no longer of value why should they be of value historically". The answer is that until the 50s they matched up very well with other sources. Here's an interesting post: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/ This doesn't mean we should ignore the divergence problem and hope it goes away- it means we need to find out why the records diverge and see if there's any way to control for the cause.

Well, only time will answer that. But it seems to me given the data has been available for nearly 3 weeks that if there were further "revelations" someone would have found them. I spent about 4 hours last night trawling trough them and it's mostly routine correspondence. It's not impenetrable though. It's clear that whoever leaked the data had an agenda to push so it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would lead with the best they had. We'll see. Which specific email concerns you? I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse (I manage that easily enough anyway) but I just want to know which specific bit I should focus on. The list of the notable ones is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate . Well there I disagree with the more lunatic fringes of environmental activism. I've never held held a belief that world leaders should be forced to lead by example in this regard. They are paid to keep busy not sit on buses. I'd be quite happy if they all took private planes providing they were not used to fly to the shops. Al Gore on the other hand should ride a bike for the rest of his life.....

Tell you what- you give me $10000 and I'll invest it in real estate in the Maldives....

Well we both agree on that!

By scientifically analyzing them: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf EDIT- just realised that sentence makes no sense. Imagine you'd said "HOW do you trust...". I've had two glasses of wine and my dyslexia is kicking in.

Well, I could reiterate the hundreds of posts available in the comments section at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ ...in which the climatologists concerned are having a nice long argument over about 50 pages of comments. But I don't think it's particularly valuable since you could just go and read it yourself. I haven't yet seen anything in the emails that's particularly controversial- taken in context the quotes are pretty banal considering that they represent the best case that could be mined from a decade's worth or correspondence. If you like I can summarise the defence made of any particular emails- where do you want me to start?

It's interesting how in the mainstream media I'm starting to see evidence of a re-framing of this debate. By cherry picking a few tasty quotes from the original emails (I highly recommend getting yourself a copy by the way; the full transcripts are fascinating) the question has been turned from a legitimate argument about the science to a shadowy conspiracy involving all the world's climatologists. Long term I can't see this being a particularly successful strategy for the denialists as conspiracy theories don't tend to go down too well with the public at large. Recommended reading, those emails- should be simple to find on Google. For the first time in a while I actually feel quite positive about the peer review process.

You're a weird guy eric

All football is completely random. Everyone knows the outcome of every football match is 50/50.

Just checking. I hate people who count General Studies :-) Do they have A*s for A-level now then? I thought those were only for GCSEs?

Are you counting General Studies?