Skip to comments.AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty (SUUURE...)
Posted on 12/12/2009 6:48:51 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
LONDON E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data 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 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
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.'"
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
There is no reason to limit CO2, except for a desire for "Command and Control".
"Fake, but accurate." Right. We the people need to put an end to this foolishness!
Someone snuck in just before me...please pull this thread. Sorry.
I can't read past this...
These days I trust the Chinese News Agency and Pravda more than the despicable Associated Press.
Reminds me of the whole Enron scam.
How many scientists in the AP?? Course they couldn’t let a skeptical scientist look at them, rather believers explained them away.
Hey AP what does, “I added Mikes Nature Trick to hide the decline” mean?
Pray for America’s Freedom
Other than that the “warming” is only because they “hid the decline”, and that it has NEVER been conclusively established to what impact human activity has on it. Sure.
Previously I was willing to accept the ground based data that showed the Earth was warming, even in contradiction of the atmospheric readings that showed it was cooling.
Even if one accepts the warming trend (faked), nobody has shown that this was a bad thing, or that human activity was the cause.
Things were significantly warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and it was NOT catastrophic. Alert me to the “problem” when it is HOTTER than the MWPeriod and still trending higher; until then..................
"Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
For those looking for a scientific organization rigorously willing to follow the facts wherever they lead, AAAS would not be the organization you're looking for. It's a mutual protection racket.
We’ve now gone past Stage 1: Ignoring the story.
Entering stage 2: the “Fake, but accurate.” stage.
About stage 4 or 5 will come “Hell, we knew it was a scam all along”
Well then it is all settled if this “prestigious” group says so. ;-)
Its not the Science that is so much in question, it is the fact that any opposing science was omitted. If you put some one on trial and only present a defense the criminal gets freed. That is why there are 2 sides, so that we can make up our own minds. Apparently they didn’t want us to do that, so in effect, they made up our minds for us. That’s why this is so wrong. That’s why this is propaganda.
Any flight hardware or analysis product that ever comes from this Obamanation is purged and destroyed before the system in question is allowed to resume operation.
Can you imagine if you boarded an airlplanr and just prior to takeoff the captain comes on over the PA system to let you know that the analytical data for the wing design was drylabbed - but not to worry all is fine?
Now extend that relationship to the Global Warming analyses.
This model is how the Aerospace Industry operates, and the prime customer for their products is the the US Government. A little ironic if you asked me.
After all the AP has done to spin, bury, and fabricate the news, I wouldn’t expect it to be able to discern truth .... or evidence of falsification .... if it jumped out and bit the AP on its nose.
Wikipedia defines: Fabrication, in the context of scientific inquiry and academic research, refers to the act of intentionally falsifying research results, such as reported in a journal article. Fabrication is considered a form of scientific misconduct, and is regarded as highly unethical. In some jurisdictions, fabrication may be illegal.
The word falsifying used above should not be confused with the legitimate and essential activity of finding and sharing evidence that contradicts a hypothesis (see falsifiability) but is used in the sense of deliberately presenting known false information as true with the intent to deceive. Neither should the concept be applied to a scientist or a group of scientists deceiving themselves; this behaviour is sometimes called pathological science.
Examples of activities which constitute fabrication include:
Outright synthesis of experimental data; reporting experiments which were never conducted. Sometimes referred to as “drylabbing”.
“Fudging”, “massaging”, or outright manufacture of experimental data.
Inappropriate, and statistically invalid, “culling” of experimental data, such as the intentional exclusion of experimental runs which contradict the hypothesis the scientist is trying to demonstrate, or excessive filtration of “noise” which suggests a correlation where none can be shown to exist.
Intentional portrayal of interdependent events as independent.
Ordering subordinates or research assistants to participate in any of the above.
In addition, some forms of (unintentional) academic incompetence or malpractice can be difficult to distinguish from intentional fabrication. Examples of this include the failure to account for measurement error, or the failure to adequately control experiments for the parameter(s) being measured.
Reminds me of Bush’s air force papers scandal ....
The papers are fake but accurate....
Right. The Associated Press? When I see the AP byline, I think, “Lie.”
Guess AP is done fact checking Sarah’s book.
‘Fudging, massaging, or outright manufacture of experimental data.
Inappropriate, and statistically invalid, culling of experimental data, such as the intentional exclusion of experimental runs which contradict the hypothesis the scientist is trying to demonstrate, or excessive filtration of noise which suggests a correlation where none can be shown to exist.’
All of the above clearly occurred, with the possible exception of “outright manufacture”. We’ll see how intellectually honest the CRU review is by EAU.
A possibility that a whistleblower dumped the e-mails?
A scientist with a conscience at CRU?
To paraphrase Monty Python, “Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spinnity-Spin!!”
But the liberal AP has no scientific expertise to examine the substance of the fraud and cover up by the warmers, nor do they have the expertise to even understand the science issues, IMO. I would look for a vested interest in the AGW alchemists in order to identify their bias and vested interests.
Given billions $s are being spent to somehow prove that climate change is caused by man, many scientists and politicians stand to benefit by the draconian measures being taken based on a false premise.
Funny that it was the comments in the computer code that was so damaging.
I do some coding (VBA) for my job, and recently I’ve been using the phrase “climate change is a hoax!” in my test msgboxes that I later comment out—and I smile every time. . .
“Entering stage 2: the Fake, but accurate. stage.”
Exactly. This is the back-pedal option #1 - the scientists harbored ‘fleeting doubts’ but ‘the science is solid’.
AP is just testing the cover story.
What evidence of Man made greenhouse emissions? There is, of course, “Mann made evidence” of Global Warming.
The “science” is inconclusive since you a record of 500
years to prove or disprove human caused climate change.
Tree rings show that there was a long period of draught
and heat long before human appearance on earth.
AP ,, where ‘ In Gore We TRust ‘ is gospel.
“Tree rings show that there was a long period of draught
and heat long before human appearance on earth.”
I prefer the ice core records. The problem with tree rings is their growth is sensitive to other things besides temperature such as rainfall and (gasp) CO2 concentration.
“exhaustive review by The Associated Press.” = skimmed White House talking points/read a couple of blogs on DailyKos.
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor