If GW alarmist is right, why they lie in the hacked emails?
Some day alarmist will realize that the world is not ending on Dec 2012, nor by hunger on 2000 as Liberal predicted and that Global warning is a Hoax!
Compared to the vast majorithy of people, scientists NEVER lie. They CAN'T.
The structure of science strongly militates against deception. Science must be reproducible, so as soon as work is published, some scientist somewhere in the world is going to try to repeat it. If the 2nd scientist can't reproduce the 1st scientist work, the 1st scientist "has some 'splainin' to do." The truth will always, always, ALWAYS come out, & very quickly in an active field like this.
Of course mistakes happen, methodologies can be troublesome, & all kind of other stuff happens. Sometimes mistakes are embarrassing - remember cold fusion? Sometimes they're just mistakes & the 2 scientists working together can figure them out.
However, outright deception, once discovered (& it always, ALWAYS will be), it generally ends that scientist's academic career. That's why scientists simply canNOT lie like the vast majority of normal people.
That's scientific work. Can they lie in emails? Well, they're human, so they can. They just didn't in the ones you've been told about. Instead, YOU'VE been lied to.
Yes, scientists can be back-biting, petty, intolerant of ignorance in emails, & show most of the other foibles all human have. But that's all.
Take the 2 most famous ones, "Mike's trick" & "hide the decline." In science, a "trick" isn't anything deceptive or nefarious at all, it's just a clever way of simplifying, combining or analyzing things so they make more sense. Mike's (Michael E Mann's) "trick" was to combine modern, measured temperatures with proxies of temps from the past.
Tree rings are usually wider, with less dense wood, when temps are higher, so they're called "proxies" of temp. Going back a thousand years, Mann et al analyzed tree rings, then combined them with modern measured temps. Tree rings are uncertain measures, so there were wide error bars, but those have been reduced with more people analyzing more proxies.
Nothing evil, deceptive, nefarious or tricky (in the colloquial sense) about it.
"Hide the decline" referred to the fact that SOME northern trees, instead of showing wider rings, were showing narrower rings, even though we knew from measurements that temps were rising. This has been much discussed in the scientific literature & called the "divergence problem."
In the email, "hide the decline" referred to the fact that Mann et al threw out the narrow tree ring data from some northern trees, so declining tree ring widths didn't show up in their analysis. Technically, though, once "Mike's trick" was applied, ALL modern tree rings, narrow & wide, were thrown out. Throwing out anomalous data is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in science, as long as you disclose it.
In their scientific paper, they didn't hide anything, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO IT!! They asked other scientists to address the divergence problem, & now there are several possible hypotheses for why it might be happening.
There was NOTHING deceptive or nefarious going on. Once again, Mann et al DIDN'T HIDE ANYTHING, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO THE NARROWING NORTHERN TREE RINGS in their paper.
So the scientists did NOT lie in their emails. However, YOU have lied to by deniers, & you're foolish enough to believe them. Period.
Given my prior post, I realize you're not likely to believe me. But I'm speaking the truth. Perhaps there are lurkers with open minds.
Your progeny, should you have any, will realize that I'm right while you are terribly, terribly wrong.