Global Warming - They Think We are Too Stupid to Understand
So Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, says we have it all wrong, you are too stupid to understand English. OK, Bob, let's try it again with the word 'trick' substituted with 'short cut'.In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data, but the credibility of the email has not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to comment on the email.
"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."
In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] short cut of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."Bob, what does "short cut ... to hide the decline" mean? If we can't trust any reports authored or peer reviewed by MOST of the climatologists in the world, and t hey destroyed the original data, and they colluded to make things look worse than it is, how are we to believe:
- Global Warming is actually happening; and
- Global Warming is bad for people; and
- We can stop it?

I'm quaking in my boots.



Comments