Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (536664)	12/15/2009 3:01:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578006

Z, > Uh huh. Three words out of context. Deny deny deny ... > I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." > "The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" > And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. > The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. Like I said, don't try and hide their motives. Your attempt to ignore that only makes you look ignorant. Tenchusatsu

To: SilentZ who wrote (536664)	12/15/2009 3:05:11 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1578006

The false temp data from tree rings that was dropped for recent decades was the same data used to chart temps over the last 1000 years. It simply gave a result glaringly contrary to actual temp measurements in recent decades. That the tree ring data showed a temp decline when we know there wasn't one (assuming we can trust the official temp records) indicates the tree rings aren't good measures of temps. But admitting that would call invalidate the whole study which hid the MWP and showed the desired hockey stick. Thus the necessity to hide the decline in temps calculated from tree rings in recent decades. There was false data from tree rings indicating a temperature decline. The data was inaccurate, and they used different data that gave the actual temperatures during that period rather than the tree rings, which gave an approximation.