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 ...
‘“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
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
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.