Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty (SUUURE...)
AP via Yahoo ^ | 12/12/2009 | SETH BORENSTEIN, RAPHAEL SATTER and MALCOLM RITTER

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: algore; apisdem; apisleft; apissilly; apiswrong; associatedpress; climategate; co2isnotpollution; cooling; gettingcoldoutthere; gorebalism; iceage; iceagenow; iceageontheway; lolatassociatedpress; warming
I guess AP couldn't be bothered to look at the computer code accompanying the emails. That is definitive, and damaging.

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!

1 posted on 12/12/2009 6:48:51 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Someone snuck in just before me...please pull this thread. Sorry.


2 posted on 12/12/2009 6:50:10 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press

I can't read past this...

3 posted on 12/12/2009 6:51:03 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

These days I trust the Chinese News Agency and Pravda more than the despicable Associated Press.


4 posted on 12/12/2009 6:52:28 AM PST by Blennos (High Point, NC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Reminds me of the whole Enron scam.


5 posted on 12/12/2009 6:52:58 AM PST by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
In those emails they clearly discuss how the DID fudge the numbers to hide a decline. That *IS* faked data. The AP can go blow on it! I don't need those non-sciene majors telling me what is and isn't. I work with digital seismic data every day.
6 posted on 12/12/2009 6:55:44 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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 Mike’s Nature Trick to hide the decline” mean?

Pray for America’s Freedom


7 posted on 12/12/2009 6:56:08 AM PST by bray (Palin can see the White House from her Porch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

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..................

8 posted on 12/12/2009 6:56:32 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty; According2RecentPollsAirIsGood; livius; DollyCali; FrPR; TenthAmendmentChampion; ..
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

9 posted on 12/12/2009 7:06:21 AM PST by steelyourfaith (Time to prosecute Al Gore now that fellow scam artist Bernie Madoff is in stir.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
"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.'"

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.

10 posted on 12/12/2009 7:07:59 AM PST by cookcounty (“HOAX and CHEnge” ......Obama's beret comes into clear view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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”


11 posted on 12/12/2009 7:08:15 AM PST by Carl LaFong (Experts say experts should be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“exhaustive review by The Associated Press”

Well then it is all settled if this “prestigious” group says so. ;-)

12 posted on 12/12/2009 7:11:56 AM PST by 1776 Reborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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.


13 posted on 12/12/2009 7:14:22 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
In the Aerospace Industry this is what is known as DRYLABBING the data.

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.

14 posted on 12/12/2009 7:14:29 AM PST by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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.


15 posted on 12/12/2009 7:25:50 AM PST by Mobties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: R0CK3T

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.


16 posted on 12/12/2009 7:31:10 AM PST by sefarkas (Why vote Democrat Lite?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: norraad

Reminds me of Bush’s air force papers scandal ....

The papers are fake but accurate....


17 posted on 12/12/2009 7:39:15 AM PST by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
"LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists..."

They never miss a chance to throw in the word "stolen" when it comes to the climategate emails, do they? But, as I said before, even if they had been "stolen", it is the content of the emails and WHO wrote them that counts...not where they came from.


"The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP..."

That's where I stopped reading...if the AP has anything to do with anything, you can bet it is hard left, and factually inaccurate.

Journalism Majors "examining" anything is cause to worry, it would be like algore performing an appendectomy...
18 posted on 12/12/2009 7:42:34 AM PST by FrankR (SENATE: You cram it down our throats in '09, We'll shove it up your ass in '10...count on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1776 Reborn

Right. The Associated Press? When I see the AP byline, I think, “Lie.”


19 posted on 12/12/2009 7:43:04 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Guess AP is done fact checking Sarah’s book.


20 posted on 12/12/2009 7:44:52 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas

‘“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.


21 posted on 12/12/2009 7:45:45 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

A possibility that a whistleblower dumped the e-mails?

A scientist with a conscience at CRU?


22 posted on 12/12/2009 7:50:10 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

To paraphrase Monty Python, “Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spinnity-Spin!!”


23 posted on 12/12/2009 7:55:28 AM PST by swatbuznik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
Dear AP,
The data was faked, the “science” was nonexistent and the purported conclusions are fraudulent!
There is NO global warming, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and the whole issue is about government control over our lives and the redistribution of wealth.
24 posted on 12/12/2009 7:58:28 AM PST by G Larry (DNC is comprised of REGRESSIVES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

25 posted on 12/12/2009 8:25:31 AM PST by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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. . .


26 posted on 12/12/2009 8:31:58 AM PST by olivia3boys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press

>> I can't read past this...

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show

Like the opening sentence is any better. Not 'leaked', 'revealed', or 'exposed', but ***stolen***.
27 posted on 12/12/2009 8:36:49 AM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carl LaFong

“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.


28 posted on 12/12/2009 9:42:47 AM PST by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“... evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.”

What evidence of Man made greenhouse emissions? There is, of course, “Mann made evidence” of Global Warming.

29 posted on 12/12/2009 9:48:33 AM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

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.


30 posted on 12/12/2009 9:55:49 AM PST by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

AP ,, where ‘ In Gore We TRust ‘ is gospel.


31 posted on 12/12/2009 10:04:13 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. May yur bandwidth exceed your girth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

“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.


32 posted on 12/12/2009 10:22:16 AM PST by PreciousLiberty (In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

“exhaustive review by The Associated Press.” = skimmed White House talking points/read a couple of blogs on DailyKos.


33 posted on 12/12/2009 11:19:44 AM PST by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
The smoking gun in "FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro"

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
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

34 posted on 12/12/2009 12:24:08 PM PST by no-s (B.L.O.A.T. everyday...because someday soon they won't be making any more...for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson