Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Levelised costs | Main | UK science journos talk "false balance" »

The fall of Forest 2006?

Nic Lewis is best known to the sceptic blogosphere as one of the co-authors of the O'Donnell et al paper, which found significant flaws in Steig's paper on Antarctic warming. Lewis has just published an extremely important article about Forest et al 2006, one of the key climate sensitivity papers shown in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Forest et al found a climate sensitivity of 3°C/doubling, rather higher than many other studies. However, although his research has been hampered by the fact that Forest appears to have lost the raw data (!), Lewis has concluded that there must have been a misprocessing of the figures and that the correct figure for climate sensitivity would be only 1°C/doubling.

If I am right, then correct processing of the data used in Forest 2006 would lead to the conclusion that equilibrium climate sensitivity (to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is close to 1°C, not 3°C, implying that likely future warming has been grossly overestimated by the IPCC.

It is hard to overstate how important this finding is, if correct.

Read the whole thing.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (61)

I see that Dr Chris E Forest "graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1990 with a BS in Applied Math, Engineering, and Physics", whereas Nic Lewis graduated from Cambridge University with a degree in Mathematics.

Climate psyentists like to "win" debates with the argument from authority ("I'm a scientist and you're not, so I'm right and you're wrong"). So let's see. Who's more likely to be right on a question of statistics: the guy who went to the 3rd-best mathematical university in the world (or "on the planet", as greenies like to say), or the guy who went to the 96th-best?

Cambridge 3rd; Wisconsin 96th.

Tough call, tough call....

Jun 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

"Dr Forest reports that the raw model data is now lost"

Yeah, yeah.

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

"Forest appears to have lost the raw data (!)"

It would appear that sloppiness is the normal mode of operation within climate "science", Therefore, it is not surprising they get all upset when people start asking awkward questions.

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterConfusedPhoton

It's like watching a conjurer ... every last visible (scientific) support for the body has been removed, yet still it remains suspended by some "miracle".

Of course, the real truth is that it never was supported by the visible supports of science .... and so even when all the scientific support is removed, it was never going to fall.

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterScottish Sceptic

"It is hard to overstate how important this finding is, if correct."

I'm sure the commenters here rise to the challenge

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

“the raw model data is now lost” If a student made this claim their essay or dissertation would be failed . But as a ‘professional climate scientist’ such basic standards are not required.
Frankly this idea never stops amazing me that the standard seen in this area is lower than the standard expected of any student on a undergraduate course is a blood* joke.

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Looks like the cavalry might have finally appeared over the horizon - some real scientists are starting to check this stuff out.

I think I'll ring up Staples Office Supplies and see if shredder sales are up in East Anglia.

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:46 PM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

If a three [K] falls in the Forest, and there's no data around to bear it, does it make a sound?

(I'll get my coat.)

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

Read Nic Lewis’s article at ClimateEtc and you’ll see what he’s up against. The journal won’t accept a comment on an article, only a full counter-article. How many journals will accept an article which says “I don’t believe x because the data’s been lost and what I’ve been able to find out about it is contradictory”? That’s not science, it’s investigative journalism.
So as far as the IPCC and the outside world is concerned, Nic Lewis’s research doesn’t exist, and Forest 2006 will continue unchallenged.

I find the “my university was better than yours” argument contemptible when used by warmists, and equally so when used by “our” side.

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:50 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

You can almost hear the shrugging of the shoulders in the Forest camp.
Global warming is dead. It's served its purpose so who cares any more if I've lost my data or even if I made an "error" or two, or several.
As Geoff says, Forest et al is safely in AR4 and can be referenced in future if necessary, but hey, guys, it's all about sustainability now. That global warming stuff is out of date. Didn't you get the email?

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson


yes, being lectured by such obviously low calibre people has always rankled with me. From the supposed "top-end" guys like Steig and friends through to the 3rd rate Phil Jones then onwards to clowns like Richard Black and the arty Guardian types.

Of course this isn't a peeing contest and only the facts matter but it seems bizarre for the apocalyptic side to play the authority card when they have so little to back it up.

(Maths degree from no 27)

Jun 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonW

Foxgoose: 'some real scientists are starting to check this stuff out'

It appears that all the IPCC physics is wrong.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterspartacusisfree

A fall back position for the IPCC is that the existence of a single, simple constant for something called "equilibrium climate sensitivity" is neither a valid nor a genuinely useful concept in the first place.

The sole point of it is to reduce complexity to a quotable number that can go into headlines to scare the ignorant. I wouldn't be surprised to see mention of it quietly disappear if it stops fulfilling this criterion.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:15 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

michael hart wrote concerning "equilibrium climate sensitivity":

"I wouldn't be surprised to see mention of it quietly disappear "

Indeed, IPCC linked scientists are now pushing TCR (Transient Climate Response) - what the global mean temperature rise would be after a 70 year period during which CO2 levels doubled. Not a good measure, in my view, since it mixes together the equilibrium response and the delay caused by deep ocean heat uptake.

Effective climate sensitivity, being proportional to the reciprocal of the climate feedback or response parameter (how much net outgoing radiation changes with a 1 deg.C rise in global mean termperature, at a given level of forcings) seems to me a much more sensible metric, if one wants to move away from equilibrium climate sensitivity. It is closer to what most climate sensitivity studies really measure than equilibrium climate sensitivity, although the difference between these two measures is often ignored.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

That fall back position is compromised because of fraud. Despite the best efforts of Oxburgh, Beddington and King, the public now knows this and that the scientific establishment, including the Royal Society, have been seriously compromised because even in the absence of complicity, politics made them overlook defects in the science obvious to any objective professional.

How could any 'science' claim 'cooling by more reflection from smaller droplets in polluted clouds' exactly offset AGW when it's obvious large-droplet rain clouds reflect most sunlight. Every process engineer who looks at the IPCC Energy Budget picks up the elementary failure to understand heat transfer at the Earth's surface. Yet renowned scientists failed to spot these basic errors: incompetence.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterspartacusisfree

@ geoffchambers

I see your point, but I'm not so sure. The IPCC and Stern are best exploded using the "facts" they themselves put forward, because then there can be no argument about the quality or reliability of the facts. In the same way, it can be useful to debunk the quality of the arguments as well using the same type of argument that warmists use. "My university is better than your university" is patently an empty argument but on the other hand it's the warmists who are dependent on it, and nobody else.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

From Hansen & Sato, Climate sensitivity estimated from earth's climate history (draft here):

Difference in global average T between LGM and late Holocene = 4.5 +/-0.5C
Increase in forcings necessary to maintain this temperature difference:
GHG = 3 +/-0.3 W/m2
Surface albedo = 3.5 +/-0.7 W/m2

ECS = 0.75C per W/m2 forcing change = 3 +/-0.5C for 2xCO2 (4W/m2 forcing).

Bang on top of ye olde Charney sensitivity from 1979.

Number of studies finding ECS to be ~1C vs ~3C? Er, not a lot, guv.

I think if a mistake has been made here, it is most likely to be by NL, not Foster.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD: you easily explain all warming attributable to GHGs by correcting Sagan's mistaken aerosol optical physics. A second optical process increases average low level cloud albedo by ~10% at present, more in polar atmospheres. Switching it off by biofeedback explains the end of ice ages, the periodic Arctic melt cycle and recent OHC rise, now reversing in the N. Atlantic. Net CO2-(A)GW, is near zero.

The bottom line; 3.5% reduction of cloud albedo accounts for the climate bistability attributable to GHGs.

Jun 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterspartacusisfree

Correction A second optical process increases albedo for 40% of low level clouds by ~10% at present, a higher proportion of such clouds in polar atmospheres'

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterspartacusisfree

BBD: if other climate scientists generally considered that the LGM studies provided reliable evidence of climate sensitivity being 3, as Hansen claims, I think that the IPCC would have featured them strongly in the AR4 WG1 report. It did not do so, instead discussing at length the great uncertainties that exist, particularly in what forcings were at the LGM. Section concluded merely

"Overall, estimates of climate sensitivity from the LGM are broadly consistent withother estimates of climate sensitivity derived, for example, from the instrumental period."

FWIW, IPCC Figure 9.20 included two LGM studies in its estimates of climate sensitivity (5-95% ranges only). One, Annan LGM 05, did not explore the possibility of sensitivity being under 4 deg.C. The other, Schneider LGM 06, shows a 5-95% range of 1.2 to 4.3 deg.C.

I think, along I imagine with most scientists, that instrumental measurements provide a much more reliable way to estimate climate sensitivity than LGM and other paleoclimate proxy-based methods.

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis


We went through all this nonsense in some detail when you were Alistair, and then again when you were MDGNN. I'm not doing it yet again in honour of your new name.

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Spartacus, BBD

This thread is about Nic Lewis's paper, not any alternative theories

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:24 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

BH Sorry.

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterspartacusisfree

It is not important at all, because the carbon dioxide climate sensitivity is in fact neither 3°C/doubling of CO2 nor 1°C/per doubling, but zero. The Venus atmosphere has 96.5% carbon dioxide, over 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, or over 11 doublings--but the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is physically explained, fully and precisely, at points of equal pressure over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, only by the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. The temperature-versus-pressure (TP) curves of the two atmospheres, when corrected only for their difference in distance from the Sun, are right on top of each other; Venus's TP curve is not 11°C higher than Earth's (as it would be if the sensitivity were 1°C/doubling), nor 33°C higher (if it were 3°C/doubling)--within the thick cloud layer of Venus, it is in fact about 5°C LOWER than Earth's TP curve, but above and below that layer there is no difference in the two curves at all. There is no room for a carbon dioxide greenhouse effect at all in this DEFINITIVE observation, and it should have been obvious to any competent atmospheric physicist or climate scientist 20 years ago, when the Venus data was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. Any and all talk of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide is simply incompetent, in the context of the clear Venus/Earth temperature comparison. This is the scandal that not even Bishop Hill, nor any of those "skeptics" seeking to put forward a "lukewarm" compromise position on the greenhouse effect, will openly address. Heaven forbid that anyone be openly outed as incompetent, much less that virtually all of the climate "skeptics" should be, along with all of the consensus followers. That would not be polite, and they would all be left sitting in their authoritative positiions, with their mouths open but with nothing to say, and no way to defend themselves against the anger of a suddenly wiser public.

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman

"I lost the data" reminds me of the school boy excuse of "my dog ate my homework". Unfalsifiable of course like all AGW theory. Forest should clear out his desk and leave the data torturing business, as he's now been rumbled it seems. My advice?

"Run Forest, run"

Jun 25, 2012 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

Hi Nic

Thanks for the response. The problem remains: lots of convergence around ~3C as the most likely value for ECS. Foster06 would be an *outlier* at ~1C.

I can't get worked up about this, especially in the light of the empirical calculations eg H&S which are convincing. Hansen's empirical work post-dates AR4, which is doubtless why it didn't feature there :-) Let's see what's in AR5.

The problem with the instrumental record is that the period affected by CO2 forcing is *too short*. So I would disagree that it's the best and only way to constrain modelled estimates. On reflection, I would disagree with the statement that 'most scientists' think that it is inherently superior to a paleoclimate approach based on the LGM/Holocene transition.

Jun 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


I've been following the CS work for years now, and most of the observationally-based studies find a CS of around 1 deg C/doubling CO2. This has been discussed in detail at both Climate Audit and and Judith Curry's. The 3 deg C "convergence" is almost exclusively based on model-based studies, and that's what the IPCC reports. It appears to be almost certainly overstated, and the positive-feedback climate models don't make geologic sense.

Peter D. Tillman
Geologist & geochemist

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter D. Tillman

The problem with the instrumental record is that the period affected by CO2 forcing is *too short*?

And yet it is only over the latter half of the last century (and some would say the beginning of the current century?) that we can apparently be so confident that the impact of CO2 can be separately discerned from the impact of other natural factors ...

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:04 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

"Run Forest, run"
Nice one Farley.
In the film (Forest Gump) the leg-irons fell away from the eponymous hero.
Dr Forest may well be experiencing the opposite!

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

If the field of climatology is not totally populated by a bunch of charlatans it is a remarkably unhappy coincidence that so many of them are so skilled at appearing as if they are.

'I lost the data'

Yeah right . Course you did Chris. Just one of those things. Just like happens to Mikey and Philboy and all your other mates.....what an amazing set of unfortunate coincidences.....we believe every word....course we do.

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Am I right in thinking that Nic Lewis' concerns would be admissible into AR5 regardless of whether it was published in a journal or not? (Given the greater acceptance even of quite grey literature this time around...!)

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM | Registered Commentermatthu

"It is hard to overstate how important this finding is, if correct."

I'm sure the commenters here rise to the challenge

The Irreproducible Panel on Climate Change?

Jokes aside, even if Nic is wrong it would still be concerning that:
- it wasn't possible to find the data and reproduce the results with a reasonable amount of effort
- the 2 data sets used in subsequent studies don't match

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterredc

"Hide the decline"- the sequel.

Jun 25, 2012 at 5:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller


You find Hansen's calculations to be "convincing" and "empirical". I wonder if you would care to comment on his estimate of albedo change (a very critical factor) which just assumes that this is negatively proportional to sea-level^0.8, without a shred of justification. He quite simply ignores vegetation changes, changes in snow cover and changes in cloudiness all of which are known to have been very large between the LGM and the present.

Jun 25, 2012 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered Commentertty


I'm not going to argue about the alleged demerits of H&S' methodology, not least because BH has already cautioned against drifting off topic. However, a misrepresentation is a misrepresentation, and I hope our host will allow a single comment in response.

From the H&S draft paper:

Climate forcing due to surface albedo change is a function mainly of sea level, which implicitly defines ice sheet size. The albedo forcing does not depend sensitively on ice sheet shape or on how many ice sheets the ice volume is divided among (Fig. S4, Hansen et al., 2008). We assume that division of ice between Northern and Southern Hemispheres at the LGM had 75 m sea level in the Antarctic ice sheet and 105 m in Northern Hemisphere ice, as in Hansen et al. (2008), calculating the albedo forcing as a function of sea level with their equation S1. Surface albedo change due to vegetation change is implicitly included in the surface albedo forcing, which is calibrated via global radiation calculations using surface boundary conditions for the LGM and Holocene (Hansen et al., 2008). Because much of the LGM-Holocene vegetation change is inherent with ice sheet area change, ice sheet and vegetation changes are lumped together in assessing surface albedo climate forcing.


The other quantity needed to empirically evaluate climate sensitivity is the sum of LGM-Holocene GHG and surface albedo climate forcings. Forcings are obtained by simple radiation calculations, but they have a moderate dependence on climate models, if models are employed to define the global distribution of radiative constituents such as water vapor and clouds. We use effective climate forcings, which includes efficacy of each forcing (Hansen et al., 2005). The efficacy of CO2 is unity, by definition; other forcings include a factor ("efficacy") defining how effective the forcing is in causing global temperature change relative to an equal forcing by CO2.

Our estimated LGM-Holocene forcings with 1σ uncertainties are 3±0.3 W/m2 for GHGs (range 2.4-3.6 W/m2 for 95% confidence) and 3±0.7 W/m2 for surface albedo (range 1.6-4.4 W/m2 for 95% confidence). Our GHG forcing differs from 2.8 W/m2 of IPCC (2007a) because of the high efficacy (1.4) that we use for CH4. Our surface albedo forcing is in the range (2-3.3 W/m2) that Taylor et al. (2007) report for several model studies, but smaller than the 3.5 W/m2 that we used in some prior studies because we now include an estimated efficacy of 0.8-0.9 for middle latitude surface albedo forcings (Hansen et al., 1997, 2005). The total LGM-Holocene forcing (GHG + surface albedo) is 6±0.75 W/m2. (range 4.5-7.5 W/m2 for 95% confidence).

Our resulting best estimate of fast feedback climate sensitivity is 3 ± 0.5°C for a 4 W/m2 CO2 forcing (0.75 ± 0.125°C per W/m2). Coincidentally the central estimate is the same as the 33-year old estimate 3 ± 1.5°C of Charney et al. (1979). The precision of the estimate based on paleoclimate data, however, is far superior to the model-based estimate of Charney et al. (1979). Indeed, the empirical paleoclimate estimate of climate sensitivity is inherently more accurate than model-based estimates because of the difficulty of simulating cloud changes (NYTimes, 2012), aerosol changes, and aerosol effects on clouds. The paleoclimate estimate could be sharpened further via a focused effort to improve evaluation of the magnitude of LGM global cooling or by an analogous study of the Eemian period.

Jun 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

It is not important at all, because the carbon dioxide climate sensitivity is in fact neither 3°C/doubling of CO2 nor 1°C/per doubling, but zero. The Venus atmosphere has 96.5% carbon dioxide, over 2400 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, or over 11 doublings--but the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is physically explained, fully and precisely, at points of equal pressure over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, only by the ratio of the two planets' distances from
the Sun.
Jun 25, 2012 at 3:30 PM Harry Dale Huffman

HDH - this is not a trick question on my part. There seems no doubt that the earth has been far colder in the past, even within the existence of mankind. What changed between then and now? The sun's output?

Jun 25, 2012 at 7:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Slightly O/T but I am reminded of the paper by Singh on diet and heart disease where the the original data
were eaten by termites.

Rather lengthy and the termite bite comes near the end:

Jun 25, 2012 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered Commentermunroad

3C versus 1C is a side show. The real issue is whether climate models with hidden assumptions and randomized runs should be used to generate those misnamed "probability density functions" shown. There is virtually no empirical data to support most of the depicted probability curves and Forest does not even have the saving grace of any empirical data behind it. It is simply an expression of the arbitrary sensitivity programmed into the model before it is run.

Jun 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterEric (skeptic)

BBD, from your quoted text: "Indeed, the empirical paleoclimate estimate of climate sensitivity..."

Paleoclimate sensitivity estimates are not empirical. For example, dust decreases from glacial to interglacial, causing warming, and the magnitude of that change is not measured (not empirical). It must be determined with climate models (the same ones used for contemporary sensitivity estimates). Otherwise there is no way to know the warming contributed by factors such as changes in clouds, the jet stream, dust, etc. all of which have different measurements than today's climate.

Jun 25, 2012 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterEric (skeptic)

Eric (skeptic) wrote: "Forest does not even have the saving grace of any empirical data behind it"

That is not fully correct. Although the MIT 2D model used in Forest 2006 may not accurately simulate patterns of temperature changes, including their magnitudes, it does so on the basis of user-adjustable parameters, which there has been some attemtp, at least, to calibrate. The simulated results are then compared with multiple observed temperature changes. The probability densities are intended to reflect how closely the simulated (average of 4 model runs, to reduce noise) temperatures match the observed ones. The peak of the PDF corresponds to the best match.

There are various weaknesses in this method, but IMO it is far superior to simply using multiple runs of full scale (AOGCM) climate modelsas various uncalibrated physical parameters are varied, or simulations by many different AOGCMs. That, I would agree, tell one more about the models than the real world.

Jun 25, 2012 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

Forest or NicL?... I know where I'd put my money.

Thanks for all the work you put in Nic - a hell of a lot more than just cutting and pasting other people's opnions, that's for sure.

Jun 25, 2012 at 9:36 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Nic, thanks for the correction. Does the calibration to present-day climate mean the model can accurately predict the climate ( regime with CO2 warming? For example, if the jet stream is displaced poleward with warming, would the model capture that or be able to calculate the water vapor feedback (i.e. weather response) to CO2 warming accurately? Would the model calibration match to present temperatures really be equivalent to a probability of sensitivity in the future scenario? That seems like a stretch.

Jun 25, 2012 at 9:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterEric (skeptic)

Eric (skeptic): "Does the calibration to present-day climate mean the model can accurately predict the climate ( regime with CO2 warming? "

Sorry, I'm not a climate model expert. But, as I understand it, the most important and difficult calibration involved here (of climate sensitivity) isn't to present-day climate, but against AOGCMs whose climate sensitivity is known (since they have been run for many hundreds of years, to equilibrium).

Jun 25, 2012 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

The entire CAGW paradigm could be summed up by an old Kiwi saying - 'It can't fall over, mate, as there's nothing holding the bloody thing up'.
And in the many years I spent as a classroom teacher, I don't think I ever heard the excuse 'The dog ate my homework' as most teenagers have far more creativity (and credibility) than scientists promoting catastrophist views appear to own. 'Losing my homework' was an occasional first try-on which was usually discarded, after direct questioning, in favour of 'I didn't actually do it, Sir'.

Jun 25, 2012 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Whay are climate scientists so amateurish ?

Jun 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Hughes

It's really nice to see more clever people finding errors and problems in the CAGW litterature.
I am sure mr McIntyre would have gotten around to it eventually, but he couldn't get the time to see to Forest for all the trees.

Jun 25, 2012 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEdvin

Why should Dr. Forest give NicL his data when Nic's aim is to find something wrong with it? /sarc

Jun 26, 2012 at 5:02 AM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

The dog ate Bart Simpson's homework once. Honest!

Jun 26, 2012 at 6:56 AM | Unregistered CommentersHx


Shouldn't you be looking for your coat after that one? ;-)

Jun 26, 2012 at 7:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterEarle Williams

How to make Money in Climate Science

1. find a major unanswered question.
3. question top scientists to see what they will accept as an answer
3. cherry pick data and methods to arrive at that answer
4. re-label this technique “training” – it makes it sound intelligent.
5. publish the result.

The results will seem correct to fellow scientists, especially those at the top, so they wont bother to check the math. Everyone will be impressed you have answered the hard question. More so because you will have proven their best guess correct and made them look good in the process. You will advance in your career in science. Fame and fortune will follow.

If anyone does question the results:

6. stall - play for time - they will likely give-up.
7. if not - lose the data and methods

Jun 26, 2012 at 7:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterferd berple

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>