The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a well-known decline in the response of only a certain type of tree-ring data (high-latitude tree-ring density measurements collected by Briffa and colleagues) to temperatures after about 1960. Full Story »
Posted by Tanya J. Maurer
This isn't journalism at all. It is responses to questions. I have no doubt it's factual. It is a scientist explaining emails relating to him or others that were stolen by the hackers who presented a series of selected emails from climate scientists as "proof" that climate change is specious. Scientists send all sorts of emails back and forth about their research and others' research. Some use jargon. Some are cheeky. Some are highly complex. Would I like to see a series of emails I have been sending around about some science I am doing outed publicly? Hell no! I'm likely to say that X is an a-hole and doesn't have a clue about what he's doing, Y stole Z's work, and that I disagree with W's latest paper. Does this prove anything about the underlying science? It does not. Can I explain them if they become public? Not as well as Mann explained his.
