Since the emails they had been trying to hide from the public have been exposed, the climate scienticians behind the emails are now trying to spin that references to “tricking” the data and “hiding the decline” mean something other than what what they clearly and obviously mean.
Here’s Michael Mann, one of the scienticians, trying to explain away the emails.
I assume what Phil Jones was referring to was the well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy data diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand the reason for the “divergence”.
When you cut through the crap, what he’s saying comes down to is, “We threw out the data that didn’t fit our conclusions.”
And if these emails are not a big deal, why did the scienticians vow to destroy them rather than release them under the Freedom of Information Act?