In article , "Buerste"
wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and tampered
with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

I'm sure that these things have happened to some degree. But more
generally all instruments have their issues, so one uses many kinds of
instrument and compares the results.


More generally, my opinion is that warming is most likely happening, but
that is not enough. What is not proved is:

a. Is this warming significantly affected by human activity or not?

b. If it is, is there anything practical we can do about it without
committing hari kari?

c. How much warming will we really see, and over what period of time?


I gave a fuller explanation of this in my reply to Ed Huntress in "
OK which is it Global Warming or Cooling?" posted on 7 May 2008.

Joe Gwinn