Link for the Hacked Emails re Climate Change

[moorecomp]

I am sure most have heard about this, and here is a link to some of the emails:

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Here is a snippet:

"I know Mike thinks his series is the 'best' and he might be right - but he may also be too dismissive of other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of other's). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern calibrations that include them and when we don't know the precise role of particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any other proxy data, are better than Mike's series - indeed I am saying that the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike's series (or Jone's et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed. Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat. Simple inference on the precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I don't see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific ) long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming."


Interesting reads.

[MetroMPG]

I'd like to head this off at the pass: let's not get into a free for all debate on the subject of global warming. They tend to become politically charged threads and don't contribute much to the site.

Feel free to follow the link and take from it what you will, of course.

But I'd prefer we used EcoModder to talk about ... ecomodding.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

For anybody who is interested, here are some of the responses to this:

RealClimate: The CRU hack

RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context

[chuckm]

I'd like to head this off at the pass: let's not get into a free for all debate on the subject of global warming. They tend to become politically charged threads and don't contribute much to the site.

With my last discussion on this topic, I'd have to agree. In fact, I've been lying low(ish) since then. (That and I haven't had time to read the referenced article and it's cross refs like I want to - the holidays, work's been pretty intense, plus the wife's expecting and really feeling it.)

[Ryland]

I agree on arguing about topics that we know about, if you are unsure about global warming then find a climet scientist that you trust, not a weather man, not a physicist or a chemist, but someone who's specialized field of study is in that area, I have lots of friends who are doctors, in areas like math and computers so I shouldn't take health advice from them,even tho they are doctors, right? science is the same way, find someone who works in that field, not just someone who is labeled as a "scientist" then make up your own mind.