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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (243986)	2/4/2014 3:05:33 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541375

What "hide the decline" really means... The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" - it refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitudes. "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline", instead refering to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature along with past reconstructions. The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports. skepticalscience.com

To: neolib who wrote (243986)	2/5/2014 10:16:32 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541375

that is that in fact the climate scientist did urge manipulation of the data to the East Anglican climate scientists If you are referring to "hide the decline" this will not prove to be in the favor of the defendants. The best they can do with that is accuse the climate scientists of using a suspicious sounding phrase that could confuse un-knowledgeable individuals looking for conspiracies where there were none. Whether that defense will fly in court I don't know, but the prosecution can certainly point out that before leveling the defamation they did based on that phrase, the idiots should have read the paper and looked at the technique referenced by that phrase, and understood it, before claiming it was a conspiracy to alter data. That will go to the issue of whether or not it can be said the defendant acted with "reckless disregard" to the truth of the matter. The plaintiff will have to show this to prevail (that the defendant's actions do show such disregard) and it will be a factual question for the jury to decide.