The released e-mail reveal that the peer-review process was hacked.
And, since that e-mail also shows that realclimate is one of the participants in the supression of contrary views from the beginning, citing it as evidence now is ....
Ok this is preposterous. If the entire peer-review process was "hacked" we can't trust any climate science? I guess all that science must be thrown away with the coal companies' refuse water.
> If the entire peer-review process was "hacked" we can't trust any climate science?
Pretty much. We don't know how the data was adjusted and the original data seems to be unavailable. Given that, what's to trust? Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but without data....
There is other data, from folks that disagree with the CRU folks....
f u hope you get ebola
These links are informative as the article itself without knowing Ross McKitrick's past form is quite persuasive. However on reflection it does seem extremely unlikely that the 20th century climate record was based on the cores of just 10 trees.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&...