At 11/24/09 07:52 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:
At 11/24/09 07:39 AM, Mr-Money wrote:
they say that they cannot debate the skeptics, because the skeptics are right.
Quote, please?
These quotes are directly from the hacked emails, which can be downloaded from the Pirate Bay: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/
Hadley_CRU_Files_(FOI2009.zip)
"I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where's the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away." - Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
"In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability-that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us-the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue." - Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>
"Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible." - Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Those are just three examples. I have many, many more if you would like them.
----------------------------------------
------------------------------
In addition, the SOURCE CODE of the modelling software is laden with comments from the programmers admitting that they are adding exceptions to make up for the lack of clear trends. Read it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cr u-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-b ut-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tell s-the-real-story/