Not really. Those graphs alone don't really tell you anything interesting. You need to know the methodology, what exactly they measure, how they measure it, how the apparatus may respond in different circumstances, all stuff that will be in a peer-reviewed paper or a published report.
This is an example where scientific language is different from everyday language, and where a misunderstanding (or in this case, a deliberate misrepresentation) of that difference can be construed to mean something it doesn't. In scientific terms, a 'correction' does not mean the scientist manually fiddles data points to falsify results (though that sort of thing does happen occasionally, and while the peer-review process is sometimes not very good at detecting outright fraud, it's usually detected by other people pretty quickly).
A 'correction' just means to compensate for other factors to accurately reflect reality. These corrections themselves can be incredibly complex equations, dependent on the geometry of the apparatus, and this is why 'THE RAW DATA' that deniers often demand is not as valuable on its own. This correction might be as simple as just the calibration of the equipment. The data directly from the experiment doesn't contain the information about the calibration or normalisation, that comes from the apparatus, and that's where the correction comes from.
Also, certain experiments are only valid over certain time frames, outside of which the data is either meaningless or skewed in some unusual way. For example, for an experiment I ran a few weeks ago, the raw data looks like this:
![http://sickball.org.uk/mort/sol3.JPG [http://sickball.org.uk/mort/sol3.JPG]](http://sickball.org.uk/mort/sol3.JPG)
This makes it look like nothing whatsoever is happening before 200nm, then it reaches some crazy plateau and stays there for some reason, before dropping rapidly and then reaching another plateau beyond 500nm and nothing happens after that.
However, I know that this particular apparatus simply doesn't work very well below 270nm (the bulb isn't powerful enough) and does a variety of crazy stuff purely because of the equipment. From this graph, you could conclude:
- I have discovered some radical new nanoparticle with a completely absurd absorption spectrum
or
- The data from this machine is only valid within a certain range of wavelengths and I need to get rid of the useless data and correct for systematic errors in the machine.
As much as I'd like the former to be true, I know it isn't. The error in the machine can be tested and quantified, and that's exactly what we did. Fortunately, my experiment is pretty simple and I just need to crop the axes and correct for baseline and my corrected data looks like this
![http://sickball.org.uk/mort/sol3cor.JPG [http://sickball.org.uk/mort/sol3cor.JPG]](http://sickball.org.uk/mort/sol3cor.JPG)
Which is much more useful, but looks completely different to the 'raw data'. From this, I can calculate diameter size, but this method overestimates particle diameter which I can correct for using XRD data. So my simple experiment has
two levels of correction, and suppression of data.
Data from climate research is far more complicated than my stuff, which is why the 'corrected' graph has such a different shape from the 'raw data', and collected data outside of the range where it is valid - which is why the data before 1900 is removed. Much like my methodology isn't valid below 270nm, this methodology isn't valid before 1900.
The 'trick' that was discussed in one of the leaked e-mails refers to combining data from two different methodologies, data from tree rings and data from ice cores. Some sort of biological process means that data from tree rings after a certain point takes on some systematic error, which can be corrected for using the mathematical 'trick' they were discussing.
The scientific illiteracy of the media and the unwillingness to consider mundane explanations over exciting international conspiracies results in nonsense. Whether it's ufology, area 51, climate denial, creationism, moon landing, contrails, or even the
great sprinkler rainbow conspiracy it's all rooted in exactly the same crap.
A lot of individuals wish to see events through the prism of individual actions (in this case, scientists fabricating data), rather than complex physical phenomena. Curiously, they construct fantasies that are often
more complex than the actual science they dismiss.