Posted by Jeff Condon on December 12, 2009
Today the Associated Press has finally come out with an opinion on the Climategate emails. It ain’t the most honest thing you will read today.
but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
An exhaustive review by five reporters? They must have been panting after this one. I hope the bubble heads didn’t sprain their brains reading about RegEM or multivariate regression. Two days ago, I saw a Chicago reporter doing a report on new Burt Rutan toy spaceplane, they apparently didn’t have video footage so they showed a shot of the space shuttle landing. The ‘reporter’ kept asking the crew if that was the new Burt Rutan plane or the space shuttle – nobody answered. She eventually decided it was the original spaceship 1.
That’s not the point though. This story is done with intent, these people are liars in my opinion and have prostrated themselves yet again for a liberal government agenda. Their bias could not be more obvious. Beware the government media complex – Mike Savage
First, I haven’t seen any of the blogs or serious critics claim that global warming has ended, as is implied in the first quote and elsewhere. To be fair, they have a little teenie tiny bit of skepticism in their report.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause “that unless you’re with them, you’re against them,” said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.’”
Frankel apparently doesn’t understand that the data was manipulated in several instances to present a worse than can be expected result or in Briffa’s case to the IPCC – Bodge the result.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.
The AP’s continued bias is shown here in holding the CRU party line that the emails were stolen. Hell, I consider it a theft too but realize that there is a lot of evidence for whistleblower work here. In my opinion, they should be giving the boys a medal, rather than hunting them down for prison time.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
Ya see how they again avoid the point. Trying to appear unbiased to the public while just grazing the point. First we have a statement directly from jones that emails were destroyed to avoid FOIA requests. In addition, we have emails between scientists stating specifically that one deleted everything to do with the IPCC report and requesting others to do the same. Here’s a quote from Jones:
About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.
Second there are 3 emails which specifically state that the FOIA requests from skeptics would not be honored by the government – because after several half hour sessions Jones convinced the government employee that the FOIA requests did not need to be followed.
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: “I didn’t delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don’t believe anybody else did.”
Phil Jones said the same thing to the press- We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. But the quote doesn’t hold up with the facts. Denying Email Deletion
It just keeps going.
When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
There is debate in this case as to whether the funding for this paper actually was used from the American Petrolium Institute, but not to the AP, but that’s beside the point.
Dear bubbleheads of the AP,
How would one get the IPCC to fund a document which went against the consensus in any way?
How do you perceive the potential for bias in ‘government funded’ research, or is there simply no bias?
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a “culture of corruption” that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
Really?? So the AP bubbleheads actually took the time to plot a graph of the data. The data is right there in the emails? Did they actually look up what was done with the data they were discussing in the IPCC report to see how it was presented in the end? Clearly not!
The “trick” that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.
The tree rings are held out to be temperature data, the trick to hide the decline in this temperature data was used to support the validity of these trees as thermometers. The trick gives the black art science of treemometry validity. Do ya’ see how they just miss the point. The only thing misleading is the entire body of work by Michael Mann that keeps sailing through peer review unmolested as if by majic.
The bubbleheads contacted three moderate scientists below?!! What is a moderate in science, and how the hell is North a moderate?
None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.
“My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails,” said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann’s earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
“In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown,” North said.
Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations.”
North’s group concluded falsely that the recent years were the hottest in – 3 centuries, not 10 as his studyclaimed. This is also a false representation of reality as when it’s broken down, the Mann study conclusions are based on single set of trees known to be problematic. Whatever, the whole article has been one big lie so let’s throw out another one.
Now look what the bubbleheads do to McIntyre.
“We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they’re trying to draw from the data that they have,” McIntyre said in a telephone interview.
McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is “substantially retired” from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.
Which industry doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses? Reporting sure as hell does, and reporting falsely does frivolously.
The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with “a bit of journalistic license” and “I would have rephrased or re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was released.
It seems there might have been a bit of journalistic license this time as well.
List of the responsible individuals from the AP:
Jeff Donn in Boston, Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Troy Thibodeaux in Washington provided technical assistance. Satter reported from London, Borenstein from Washington and Ritter from New York.
These people have just produced a piece of propaganda disguised as credible reporting. The intent is to fool the public and is itself a fraud. You wonder why people don’t read the papers any more? — Here’s a hint, it ain’t because we’re trying to save the earth from tree farmers.
A link to the propaganda is here. I put the link on the period to prevent accidental IQ loss from inadvertent clicking of it. Read it at your own risk. tAV accepts no responsibility for damages real or perceived from reading it.
h/t lady in red.