Study: ClimateGate Emails "Don't Support" Skeptics
Climate change skeptics can no longer complain that the mainstream media has glossed over ClimateGate. Yesterday the Associated Press published a virtual exegisis of the 1,073 emails stolen from climate researchers at East Anglia University. It was written by five AP reporters who reviewed more than 1 million words between them and then sent the juiciest passages to seven experts in research ethics, climate science, and science policy. The experts were underwhelmed, to say the least. "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," the AP reported. "Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write."
The AP examined an email that is cited more often than any other by global warming skeptics, a message in which climate scientist Phil Jones says: "I've just completed [climatologist] Mike's [Mann] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [from 1981 onward] and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline [in temperature readings]." Skeptics have cited the message as evidence that climatologists are cooking the books, but the AP saw it differently:
Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.
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.
Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saw "no evidence for the falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'" Dan Sarewitz, a science policy advisor at Arizona State University, added: "This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though within bounds." (And that's coming from a guy who works at the same university where climate researchers have taken more than $1 million from oil, coal and utility interests).
Ultimately, the AP found no evidence that the emails revealed a "culture of corruption," as some Republicans have claimed. The story makes clear that the climatologists were under siege from lawsuits and FOIA requests from skeptics eager to twist their raw data. Despite these pressures, the emails show that the scientists respected their critics so long as they were professionals who published through the peer-review process and not Internet cranks eager to feed a "den of disinformation."
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
That dog won't hunt anymore.
That dog won't hunt anymore. :-) Anytime the AP has a global warming story, it was written by Seth Borenstein. Borenstein is the lead reporter on the AP story that clears the CRU team. Here is one of the CRU emails from Borenstein to the disgraced CRU scientists:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
Borenstein doesn't sound very impartial does he? When the AP allows reporters to report on stories they are involved in, and for them to be able to dance around their own involvement in the same story, it clearly becomes a conflict of interest.
That's your proof? What does
That's your proof? What does the article say? Which Journal of Geophysical Research is he referring to? Did you forget to do your homework or get your investigative degree at www.onlinedegree.com?
ClimateGate Emails "Don't Support" Skeptics"
The APs findings are a joke.
Getting an unbiased analysis from reporters who are known proponents of global warming is impossible.
The only disinformation seems to coming from the main stream media.
Instead of fluffing the AP
Instead of fluffing the AP and their study, you may wish to examine Seth Borenstein of the AP and his role in climategate.
Oh, look, he's mentioned in at least three of them and treated not as objective reporter but as a friend.
You might want to examine McIntyre's reconstruction of the context of the trick email, where he looks at the other emails that led up to that one and discusses what they were talking about. If you did that though, make sure you have some tums handy, because it doesn't look good for the "mathematical technique" sense of the word "trick."
Nonsense
From the NYTimes to Mother Jones this disturbing display of mass media deceit continues. What we are witnessing is a concerted media effort to whitewash this brazen attempt to strip people of their wealth. Mother Jones, this is shameful. Trotting out more so called "experts" to spin this sham as nothing but a big misunderstanding. After reading the emails for myself I can conclude only the so called climate science "experts" at CRU, NASA and other prestigious scientific establishments lied, yes lied. I'm done with the weasel words we now need to face the truth. AGW is just so much propaganda. Count me as one who formerly believed that "global warming" not "climate change" (weasel word) was human induced. It may still be the case but this scandal has proven that at best we don't know. When the authors of these scientifically treacherous emails admit as much themselves I don't need no stinkin' Mark Frankel to spin away the obvious. This is nothing more than a premeditated hoax, there is no reliable evidence of a human cause for global warming. It's not making a mountain out of a molehill, the skeptics as it turns out had legitamate criticisms from the start. I've read Ross McKitrick's critique of the flawed statistical tecqniques used by Mann. To all MJ readers read the literature for yourselves, in particular Mann's hockey stick paper Mackintyre and McKitricks critique and Wegman's analysis. If you do you will stop being misdirected by the mainstream media, of which I now consider MJ to be a part. Please no more whitewash. People need to realize that the culmination of all of this is intended to be the Copenhagen treaty. Which will strip regular folk of even more of their hard earned wealth, and our country of it's sovereignty. This article is rubbish. It is clearly a fact that the data was doctored, that dissent was stifled and that carrers were maliciously destroyed. The only question now is to prove why this happening. As usual, when you follow the money I'm sure it'll a be quite obvious.
Wegman's Report: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
McKitrick critique: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/M&M.EE2005.pdf
Mann's ficticious hockey stick: http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%20al.%20Global%20scale%...
Wow. You all have bought what
Wow. You all have bought what the oil companies have sold you.
There is no debate about the existence of anthropogenic driven climate change in the scientific community. The other consensus seems to be that all 'conspiracy theorists' about global wealth exchanges are all not scientists.
This of course makes sense right. There people that don't understand the science are more likely to believe some conspiracy nonsense, overlooking the fact that the scientific community is at a consensus.
Let the (cowards) Hackers Speak
Having read much of the emails, and finding it predominantly serious, scientific, rigorous, albeit loaded with cant and scientific terminology I suspect few lay-folk really understand, I find these people not of the hysterical, over the top sort who fudge data and scream fire (or ph0ny) at every convenience. They were quick to downplay common assumptions that Katrina, for instance, was a sign of Global Warming. They seem a conservative lot, as most scientists are.
And whilst reading through these stolen words, I couldn't help but wonder what sort of low lifes had done the hacking, and why they are being so cautionary in their admission of guilt - or success, I suppose. When did the bushwhacker in the weeds, the lurker under the cover of darkness, the sneaky kid shadowing his betters in anticipation of an error, become the American Hero? I suspect it was someones slinking around the labs peering over shoulders while feigning friendship, or managing to install keystroke loggers.
These are Swift Boaters, sleazy punks. They don't deserve our respect and certainly not the presumption of credibility. I don't understand all the emails, and like a diagnosis from my doctor - or several doctors - I'm forced to accept the word of credible experts. The weasels and their minions and champions and "anonymous" supporters are anything but.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.



