Posted on 12/12/2009 4:10:04 PM PST by tobyhill
Did they write the article before or after they read the emails? How could anybody make that conclusion from them?
Pray for America’s Freedom
It’s funny how they keep throwing out excuses, then when one doesn’t work they move to a new one, which is just as bad as the one before.
The Emails show MSNBC to be a fraud.
AP tries to un-ring the bell. Sorry, won’t work.
The emails show pettiness. The computer code shows fraud.
Wow, who would have expected this?
“the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press”
So, now the AP are part of the peer review process?
I rather doubt it ... it’s more likely that they’re just part of the cover up.
yeah, that finally shut up a couple of wacko lefty computer nerd friends of mine. The intial release of the emails stumbled them, then they bought into the “cherry picking” coverup story. I sent them some of the actual code and haven’t heard anything on this for days. :-)
After reading almost all the emails I’d suggest the AP writers are attempting to continue the scientific fraud.
Did they put as many on it as they have Obama/Barry’s real background?
If the skeptics were somehow misguided and the whole global warming scare had justification, the conversation could go to television with leading authorities from both sides. But the case and the fraudulent science that attempted the biggest private power grab and largest financial fraud in history cannot present their case in detail much less when real scientist can stand their and call it all a fraud.
The treaty had subtext that leaked out called the Danish text. It was meant to stay hidden with all the glossy stuff showing. When it came out, the hole that the emails started turned into a flood that destroyed the damned dam of lies.
The AP is showing complicity in this grand chess move of the financial overlords and like Reuters, AP is controlled by the financial oligarchy through ownership and advertising. They are known distorters of the truth and avoiders of the critical and promoters of the trivial.
Obama is on the criminal conspiracy and so is AP. To bad the financial oligarchy owns the courts and Congress because now we have to tolerate yet another corporate overseer as president.
Legitimate government has been overthrown and doesn't that mean the illegitimate government we have now rules us by treason? I think it does.
“Anyone who says there is no fraud, hasn’t seen the analyses of the computer programs.”
Here’s your smoking gun.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403521/posts
Advocates for the case of human caused global warming frequently cite computer models to support their claims.
So why don’t they prove how accurate their models are by using as initial conditions data from say 1970, run the model, and see how the results match up with conditions today?
They don’t. Not even close. Way off.
Part of the reason is that they are incomplete; they don’t include terrain data because no one knows how to program the effects of the Himalyas or the Rockies etc. They don’t include accurate equations related to water vapor and clouds because there is ongoing debate on their influence on the climate.
None of the models predicted the present decade-long timeout of increasing temperatures despite the continuous increase of CO2 into the atmosphere, now at 38 or 39 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 other air molecules.
That’s like placing 38 or 39 opposing team fans dressed in their team colors distributed randomly throughout a 100,000 capacity stadium during a football game and measuring their contribution to the fan noise. If the number increased to 50 or 100, would anyone notice? Would you even be able to spot them in the crowd?
And in earths atmosphere today it will be another 4 to 5 1/2 years before the count of CO2 molecules increases by one (to 39 or 40) for every other 100,000 air molecules.
We have accurate weather data going back over 40 years independent of the CRU and NASA adjusted temperatures if we could use declassified data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP).
Or at least I think we still have that raw data. Do we? Or have they adjusted and contaminated that too?
If not, let’s issue a challenge to the pro-human caused global warming aristocracy to run their models with real data and show the results.
A smoking gun, the glare of hate caught by the unblinking eye; and yet the mother screams “My boy wouldn’t shoot nobody!”
*********
It’s all about the inferences they want to be drawn from the evidence...or not.
The Dims are run by and think like trial lawyers. It takes one to know one.
And it’s important to understand the points where their “case”- their talking points, are flawed.
Because they want to control the language, and the thought process.
The inferences that are made or not made from the evidence of actual events is crucial to determining which world view is maintained.
In most science disciplines, if you "pretty up" data, that is clear-cut academic dishonesty. Careers have been ended over such things.
AP as reported on MSNBC, owned by GE with huge dollars at stake to keep the AGW dream alive. Bias? Naw!
Journalistic fraud to go with scientific fraud.
Of course, the MSM have been getting away with the former for years.
Too late, the secret is out
How long did Ward Chirchill hang on until he was fired?
Plagiarism should get you fired, too.
The disaster for the Leftwingtard AGW crowd occurred when satellite data became publicly available.
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.