You Just Don't Understand

People seem to often be focusing first on this word "trick" used in a Phil Jones email:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Seems pretty straightforward, right?  But according to the spinners, that's only because you're stupid.

Skeptics who are focusing on this particular word just do not understand some of the inside language scientists use.

Um.  Well, spinner, most of us focus on the term "hide the decline".  It may be difficult for you to believe, but we are actually at least as smart as you.  Many of us have extensive backgrounds in science.  Given your background, the term, "trick" likely involves sexual activity of an illegal nature, which is why you home in on that word when the rest of us look at the full context.

Ever notice that they always claim that you "don't understand"?

That smug superiority thing was wearing thin, even before they got caught with their pants down.

Skeptics who are focusing on this particular word just do not understand some of the inside language scientists use.

Comments

[Chris McMullen]

It sure is fun to listen to Mr. "Katrina was caused by global warming" getting his a$$ handed to him by Chuck Weise and Tim Ball.

Here is an especially damning piece (HT Ted's blog):

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html

[ZZMike]

That article is the most damning I've seen so far.

"... to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! ..."

And so on.

It isn't getting any better for their side.

One of the commenters has a good idea: repeal all the laws and regulations that have been based on this junk science.

[Bobkat]

These are the same asshats that threw away the original data that was collected that all this BS is based on.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[Max]

I read the Harry Read Me file; should have posted it. It's pretty intense reading, if you've ever done any programming; it's a clear outline of the methodology employed in an effort to produce desired results - the polar opposite, therefore, of actual science.

I didn't go there because I try not to get too wonky; people glaze over if you get into coding and hacks - though having done some quiet hacking in the past, the experience led me to believe that the files involved were assembled, rather than the output of hackers as widely reported in US media.