http://svtplay.se/v/2226725/vetenskapens_varld/del_12_av_18__climategate?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,2226725/sb,p102815,1,f,-1

IMHO you do a very admirable job of “saying what you want to say, and nothing else,” which is difficult, and along the lines of the old adage that “I would have written a shorter letter, but didn’t have the time.”

Any decent lawyer would applaud your efforts in this vein, and I know the difficulties of self-discipline involved. Sure, your critics will still find fault with whatever you say, but it seems to me that your style creates more friends than critics.

I hope you keep it up, I mean, in that careful style of yours. It is your most valuable asset, more valuable even than your analysis, which is of course very valuable on its own, but worthless if no one reads it. So please keep up that cordial tone.

-Paul

IT IS CALLED MONEY

Money can manipulate peoples mind. I mean look at America. The country where everything is being censured by the corporations. People have no idea what is really going on. The truth is more frightening then people think. This is also a reason why people do not believe in it. Humans do not want to believe in anything as frightening as the truth.

Comment from a scetpical Dutchman living in Norway

however, even if they did hide “bad data”. the other climate stations around the world had matching results. why focus on the one only thing that diverts from majority?

especially when nobody ACTUALLY knows what is happening to our environment – the science of climate is kind of “new” and most of the theories is, in fact theories. so having a really strong belief in anything here is pretty much pointless at this time.

this, in my eyes seems more like a discussion of different people saying: “lets be careful” or “it doesn’t matter what we do”. where the other seem kind of a pretty naive way of looking at the world. even if the climate question is a hoax, it might become an issue in the future if more greenhouse-gases are released.

to understand nature i recommend watching the power of the planet series, i think its a pretty good program who describes how earth systems work.

also, the main reason why i personally think we should think about what we put out in the air and water is not mainly co2 but other more dangerous chemicals that ends up in ourselves when we breathe and drink.
and if you dont like people making money out of this, then try to realize there’s far more money involved in NOT doing anything.

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_revised.pdf

And for the unedifying story of teh review procedure for McKitrick’s paper see

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/response_to_ijoc.pdf

I might just add that the original Schmidt paper was refereed by Jones and given the most cursory review, which hailed the totally confused autocorrelation discussion as very important and failed to challenge the coefficient issue at all. the complete substantive part of the review is as follows

“Review of Schmidt

This paper is timely as it clearly shows that the results claimed in dML06 and MM07 are almost certainly spurious. It is important that such papers get written and the obvious statistical errors highlighted. Here the problem relates to the original belief that there were many more spatial degrees of freedom. This is a common mistake and it will be good to have another paper to refer to when reviewing any more papers like dML06 and MM07. There is really no excuse for these sorts of mistakes to be made, that lead to erroneous claims about problems with the surface temperature record.

My recommendation is that the paper be accepted subject to minor revisions. I have grouped my comments into minor changes that are needed, and a second set of thoughts that the author might like to consider to help clarify his arguments. It is certain that this paper will get read by a particular type of climatologist, so it ought to be as clear as possible. I’m happy if all the thoughts are ignored.”

The common mistake is not a mistake at all. Autocorrelation in the dependent variable is not a problem – it is a feature of the data. If it is adequately explained by the independent variables so that the equation residuals are not autocorrelated there is no problem. The interesting feature of the data has been adequately explained. Jones does not seem to know what he is talking about. It’s this combination of arrogance and ignorance which makes me sceptical.
The Jones review can be found at

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/review_schmidt.doc

He’s funny