AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

[UpInArms]

Source: Associated Press

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.'"

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHPLC00

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I'm sure the corporate media will get right on this

broadcasting the findings far & wide - along with a retraction of their previous knee-jerk reaction provided by the mighty right-wing Wurlitzer :eyes:

[pattmarty]

4. Yup. Fox is all over this making sure to get the "truthiness" out.

:sarcasm:

[Rage for Order]

27. UM, the AP IS the corporate media

But hey, a few reporters from the AP said the science is good, so it must be so. Maybe later we can have scientists determine how good the journalism is at the AP.

:rofl:

[Cirque du So-What]

31. Yes, AP is corporate media

but if this article doesn't get picked up by familiar outlets, it basically will go unreported. AP provides hundreds of articles, but individual newspapers decide what gets published in their respective fishwrap. I'm betting it gets overlooked by the vast majority.

[WriteDown]

40. Maybe you can explain how AP knows when things are...

"slight and fleeting." Is there some sort of meter for that?

[No Elephants]

75. LOL, you're a denier, too? I don't recall a more consistent poster.

It may save you (and us) a lot of time if you simply either list the conservative stuff you don't agree with or list the progressive stuff with which you do agree.

Although I do recall your claiming to be highly pro-labor (though anti-union), I don't recall seeing any of your pro-labor posts either. However, we've duly noted your claim to be very pro-labor, unsupported by posts though it may be. Anything else?

[WriteDown]

81. That's because..

You're never on any of the pro-labor posts. Which is odd. Next time click on any GM or Ford discussion. Denier, the new infidel.

[LARED]

2. Calling it "not pretty" is being very kind nt

[panzerfaust]

117. FactCheck.Org has a Non-Hysterical article on this

"Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming."

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.

* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings...

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

Reading the comments on this issue on the DU, and those on articles on news-sites, I am completely shocked by the deep feelings and vitriol which the issue raises. I even went to the FreeRepublic for the first time in many years to see what they had to say ...

It is beyond my belief that so many people are quite ready to accept that most scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy. Quickly the discussions go beyond that and degenerate into how the ultimate purpose is to have the UN enslave the world, destroy True Christianity, and bring national health-care to the USA.

At root, the question is "Is Anthropomorphic Global Warming occurring?"

Or, to phrase it another way, is human caused global climate change a simple Belief (such as the tenants of any given religion) in which case rhetoric, threat, and vitriol are the expected method of "discourse" (unless one has the power of physical repression or war); or is it a Fact of the existential world - in which case the discourse should be on risks/benefits of allowing it to continue, and methods to ameliorate it if it is felt more harmful than good.

I confess, I accept the germ-theory of disease, the theory of evolution, the existence of gravity, the theory of relativity, etc. But I do not hold these to be "The Truth" - but our best current approximation of what actually has occurred, and what actually exists.

Not being an expert, but having followed the climate-change hypothesis for many decades, the preponderance of the data, and the theoretical explanations favor that human activity, specifically the atmospheric changes resulting from our rapid use of fossil fuels is changing the global climate. From this it follows that we should make at least some effort to control this unintended effect.

Of course, there are some who deny that any true temperature change has been observed, that even if it has it is not related to human activity, that even if it is because of humans, that it is not because of our use of fossil fuels - some even go on to deny that oil is a fossil fuel, but that it has arisen abiogenetically and that unimaginably vast oceans of it are waiting to be found.

A very few even hold that, even if all of this is true, that a warmer earth would be beneficial to those who count on this earth - those of us living in the higher latitudes - so that we should embrace it...

...If they are wrong, where is their "Planet B" backup planet?

[Mugweed]

3. Cue the right-wing outrage that the AP is a bunch of Socialists

I'm sure that the right-wingers won't rest until their independent third party, like maybe the American Petroleum Institute, gets to review and claim that all the data is skewed and the earth is actually getting more pleasant due to the benefits of petrochemicals.

[roesch]

5. Perspective at least

I think this article and the one in NYT Science section last week gives some perspective on the issue: it was not wise to graft the tree ring data with temperature data without announcing it, but that the data in general supports the claims of GW. Unfortunately given that this science will never be written in stone, the best one can argue is that a precautionary principle is the wisest approach, and because it involves taxes and support for green energy, it will be strongly opposed.

[C210N]

6. Deleted raw data?

"but that the data in general supports the claims of
GW."

But which data.... the raw data that was deleted?

[MH1]

9. What "deleted raw data" are you talking about?

[C210N]

11. This deleted "data"...

From an article titled "Climate change data dumped", November 29:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[Warren Stupidity]

14. So you think that was the entire sum of 'raw' data on climate change?

[WriteDown]

16. No....

But the leading experts in the field who's models are touted as the foremost authority on climate change data was deleted. Its understandable though, you have to make room and that stuff is old. :eyes:

[MH1]

19. Apparently

(according to that article which may not be the entire story) it WAS done to make room - back in the 1980's! - because climate change wasn't considered that "pressing" an issue at that time.

Data storage was a bit more of an issue back in those days - and if you are talking about paper and tapes, it is still an issue. Of course NOW there is no way that material would be tossed. But back then probably one thought the data would be challenged as it is now - I expect that between when the data was entered in the database and when the records were thrown away, there was ample time for review by responsible people involved in the research. It is possible that mistakes persisted in the data, but wholesale, intentional fraud? Get real.

[WriteDown]

37. So they've just been stonewalling all this time?

Imagine if Bush was on trial for no WMD's and said he had data but it was accidentally deleted.

The relevant parts are in bold. Hard to look more suspicious.

"The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. "

To say the deletion is convenient is beyond an understatement.

[MH1]

48. You keep saying "deletion". The data was not "deleted"

magnetic tapes were thrown out because they were considered superfluous.

Other sites contain copies of the data. According to CRU they used standard and accepted techniques to adjust the data based on calibration factors (that is what "homogenize" means). Surely if someone really wanted to get the raw data from the other sources and re-compile it according to standard calibration rules, and see if they came out significantly different than CRU's data, they could do that.

However that would be an awful lot of work and require a certain level of scientific knowledge. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for anyone in the denier community to actually expend those resources to settle the issue. All they want is to create FUD and extend the profit making capabilities of their paymasters a little while longer.

[WriteDown]

55. Thrown out, deleted. The result is the same....

Kind of like all those white house emails that were "deleted" accidentally.

Impoaaible ia impoaaible

"The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible."

[panzerfaust]

119. Tossed. Not "deleted"

It is my understanding that at least some of the data in question are the raw records from some individual weather stations from the 1950s. This data was was written on paper in things called "lab books", that were tossed when there seemed to be no point in keeping them.

How many of us have our tax records from 1968?

[WriteDown]

127. Most of what was "tossed" was magnetic media...

The timing is awfully convenient though wouldn't you say. Also, they are saying that it was tossed in the 80's. Did they just realize this now (proving they are inefficient and incompetent) or were they just stonewalling all this time (making it a bit more nefarious.) Oh, and finally, why should we trust their explanation. Due to their rock solid credibility?

[panzerfaust]

130. "...at least some of the data..."

I made no claim as to what media the majority of the data were stored on, thus the 'correction' seems superfluous.

No matter what form it is in, data storage costs money. If I were a manager trying to comply with the latest directive to "slash the budget," piles of old lab-books - or dust covered reels of degrading magnetic tape - might be one of the first things I would look at. You see "CONSPIRACY" write large, I see an understandable human decision.

The nice thing about science, is that one never is left trusting any individual scientist.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. One expert, one data set, and not really deleted

however the UAE data set and its analysis has been replicated independently in three other data sets, including the data maintained by NASA. So your concerns should be put aside.

You were just concerned about the ability to replicate the analysis done by CRU, right?

[WriteDown]

38. See post 37....

People who don't find this suspicious are what is called "true believers."

[Warren Stupidity]

59. So your theory is that 20 years ago somebody conspired

to throw out mag tapes, the data from which was safely stored elsewhere, in order to fabricate results that have been replicated completely in three other independent data sets for which the original data has not been deleted?

And they did this why?

Oh never mind. You have it all figured out. Facts be damned, them evil algorists are out to git us.

[WriteDown]

61. Easier questions....

Did they just figure out the data was missing now? And does that make them incompetent? And why should we believe that the data was destroyed 20 years ago, based off the their rock solid credibility?

[panzerfaust]

120. Yep. Pretty much how it happened.

Why?

Obviously, they did it 'cause they were True Believers - even if the True Belief they are held to be duped by, had not yet been hypothesized.

They were ahead of their times, and probably Commies to boot: They knew how this would all turn out.



Sadly, most of the discussion is about Belief, and most of the Belief is not true in the physical world.

[MH1]

23. plenty of data to go around

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate

excerpt:

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.

The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.

[Kali]

43. I wonder why you got no response to this post?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. deleted... hmmm..

[MH1]

30. good point. :)

[Gormy Cuss]

15. Understand that the raw data deleted was their working data sets, not the only raw data.

That means at worst that it's much harder to review and replicate their work, but not that it's impossible.

eta: and it was ill-advised and amateurish to destroy their raw data sets.

[MH1]

8. One commentator claimed that it WAS 'announced'

actually it would have been included in the notes to the article. I don't remember who stated that though. I admit I don't even know where to look for the primary sources involved here, but having co-authored a few peer-reviewed published articles myself (info tech, not climate science), and having read scads of peer-reviewed articles (including some scientific) during my grad school years, I would find it surprising and probably unethical if the technique was not disclosed in the original paper somewhere.

Given my knowledge of the general level of ethics of a) scientists and b) right wing and industry media hacks (not to mention those behind stealing and publishing private correspondence in the first place), I will give benefit of the doubt to the scientists until I have better reason than the claims of hacks based on stolen emails. (The emails are not primary sources in this case. The papers or presentations being discussed in the emails are what matters.)

[onehandle]

7. Fake Palin will be pissed. 13 AP staffers found that a lot was faked in her fake book. nt

[WriteDown]

12. How do they know this....

Do the emails make reference to "slight and fleeting" :rofl:

"The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting...."

[WriteDown]

13. Just like fundies....

"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."

[caraher]

18. Imagine yourself subjected to a regular stream of BS criticism

It's not hard to see how these scientists would develop a "bunker mentality." It's hard to get anything done when there's a parade of at best marginally-qualified naysayers sniping at you, demanding data that would be at best meaningless to them without a further huge time investment in teaching them all the details of how it's processed and interpreted, knowing that all they're really looking for are openings to say that you're wrong (as opposed to making a judgment about the truth, wherever it may lie).

Frankel's statement might be true, but just because they were paranoid doesn't mean people weren't out to get them. Because in fact, people ARE out to get them!

[WriteDown]

22. Its kind of like when people question the existence of Allah..

It's not hard to see how these Mullah's would develop a "bunker mentality."

All snark aside, as a scientist, you don't have the right to hoarde your data and adopt a bunker mentality. Let's not forget that cold fusion was discovered a couple of years ago.

[MH1]

26. scientists are human

and there are thousands of them working on climate change. It doesn't seem unexpected that some would be bitter about the b.s. they face daily from idiots. Which is WHY the conspirators went after PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE - they knew if they read enough emails, someone would have said something that didn't look good if made public. Because we are all human.

Nothing in that "bunker mentality" changes the science of what is happening. Just because most people aren't up to date on it and are easily misled, isn't going to stop the problems that the human race is very likely to face in the not too distant future.

(Note I said "very likely". It is all about risk, remember. Do you really want your kids living with what is projected if the climate scientists turn out to be right?)

[WriteDown]

39. You can be human...

but you are still held to a scientific standard. Remember when the consensus was that the Earth was the center of the Universe?

I just think the focus is off. I wish half the focus was spent on the chemicals we are leaching into our ground than on CO2.

[MH1]

49. If it is environmental toxins you are worried about, then we are allies on that front

why don't you spend some of your efforts on posting articles about that, rather than fighting the climate change issue? People definitely need to be more aware of other issues such as toxins.

[Viking12]

50. That was never a scientific consensus, it was a religious one.

People like Aristarchus using a scientific approach offered discussions of heliocentrism as early as the 3rd century BC. But hey, why let your historical inaccuracies get in the way of your scientific inaccuracies.

[WriteDown]

53. Guess that's why it was started in ancient Greece

Zeus must have issued a Fatwa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric

[No Elephants]

74. Whether the heliocentric theory originated in Ancient Greece is debatable.

[No Elephants]

72. Maybe it was more plagiarism than discovery.

Greeks seem to have "discovered" a lot of things after the Greeks started going to Egypt to study. Just sayin'.

[WriteDown]

80. You could be right...

I would never tell a Greek that though. :)

[panzerfaust]

122. ... ah - and how long did the 'discovery' of Cold Fusion last?

Q: How was that particular claim made untenable?

A: By scientific investigation: failed attempts at replication.

Q: If climate change is equally mistaken, why is it so widely supported in that same scientific literature?

A: Because climate change is an international scientific conspiracy.

Get a grip.

[WriteDown]

126. How about geocentrism?

That only lasted as "consensus" by the scientific community for centuries or was it millenia.

Also, cold fusion was disproven after the examination of the data. The irony, it burns.

[panzerfaust]

121. As you bring the AAAS into this, here is their statement on the affair:

AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.

“The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science.

AAAS expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasized that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations...

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml

But then, they would wouldn't they - being part of the Great Conspiracy?

Disclosure: I have belonged to AAAS since 1970, and am a regular reader of their journal Science in an effort to keep up with science in general: Thus, I suppose I am not to be trusted as I am not blindly ignorant (as defined by never having read any relevant scientific paper) on the subject of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. I have followed the hypothesis for decades, and it has become more robust each year.

[Kali]

131. gosh, panzerfaust

you have several of these good posts sitting here with no replies. I wonder why?

[beardown]

17. Did some of you folks even read the article?

"the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."
I've seen threads with hundreds of postings centered around a few sentences cherry picked from the emails. The more vague and sparse the basis of the debate the more far afield the posts will range. Now what part of the above quoted sentence some of you back yard deniers don't understand? Oh, wait, I get it. The stinking AP is in on the damn hoax too.

"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."
The world's climate scientists and climate research organizations say that there is a 90 percent chance. They are not hiding that they are not 100 percent certain. I've said it before. In the real world if a team of the world's leading cancer doctors says there's a 90 percent chance that a pill will cure your cancer, you jump at the chance to take the pill.

" However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
The vast body of evidence as opposed to the vast body of dumb assed theories and repeatedly disproven alternate theories. And anybody who thinks that the whole body of the raw data was kept in one place should leave the debate to the adults and resume your search for the child of Elvis and Bigfoot.

Sure there are other theories put forth by people interested in understanding what's happening and not just ideological drones or oil company hacks, but none of these have the backing of the vast majority of the legitimate climate research folks and none of which have shown to have any kind of support to ignore the predictions.

[MH1]

20. some of these folks don't give 2 figs what the article says

that is not why they are here, I think.

[UpInArms]

21. thank you for that very well written post

:thumbsup:

[WriteDown]

24. Its odd that no one tries to put those "cherry-picked"

sentences in context though. I guess they're too "slight and fleeting"

[beardown]

41. Huh?

The article says they went through them and found nothing. That is putting the sentences in context because they read through them and I'm sure they'd start with the ones that the deniers are running around frantically waving in everyone's faces now. The "no one" that you talking about the deniers who extracted a few cherry picked sentences and phrases. You know, like you.

Funny, just yesterday I said that you demanded a higher level of proof from other poster's comments than your demanded or provided for you own and now you post this question about the odd lack of context applied to the comments and that's the very thing that you've used to launch dozens of denier posts loaded with generally the same disproved or discounted theories. Odd doesn't begin to describe it.

[WriteDown]

54. No that is not putting th4m in context...

Let me give you an example. beardown posted that "they went through them and found...deniers...extracted...a higher level of proof.

If I were to put it in context, I would post the entirety of what you said. Notice that is not what has happened though.

[beardown]

78. Nice example. Looks like you've had lots of practice.

So NOW you want context?

I first I thought that you didn't read the article. Now I'm sure that you don't even read your own posts. You were a major contributor to a thread a couple of days ago whose lead in was just a couple of completely out of context words and phrases from the emails and you ran with them like a fundamentalist with a tortilla with a image of Jesus on it.

Reading them is putting them into context. Duh. Then they reported their findings. Now you're saying the guys doing the reading comments are out of context? And if the stolen emails are posted let me save you the trouble of your reply "How do we know they released them all". I just saved you two minutes. Use them to read some legitimate climate research.

Tough to debate a guy that can shift his "context" principles 180 degrees at will. No wonder you're having such a difficult time understanding the science of climate change. They tend to stick with the consensus theory until a overwhelming body of new research allows them to do a 180. You do them like a professional ice skater on meth.

[WriteDown]

88. The challenge extends to you...

Please put the emails in context. See post 54 for examples of how that is done.

[beardown]

101. You mean I should read post 54?

So if I read post 54 I can get a full understanding of what you mean? And then I should write back to you about how much I learned from reading your post because by reading it I put it into it's full context? Oh, like the AP did with the emails.

At first I thought you were just trying to deflect the discussion away from the huge contradiction in your lack of need for context in a previous subject and your obsession with context in this one, but now I see that it was just a clever way to agree with me that BY READING THE EMAILS the AP saw the context in which they were written and then reported on it. You know, like you just asked me to do.

A simple admission of being wrong would have been enough, but it's certainly a nice touch when you go through an extra post that highlights the logic to everyone. An apology and a puzzle all rolled into one.

[WriteDown]

104. Let's try this...

By reading the emails many saw the contexts they were written in and saw that they completely undermined global warming. Any. belief the scientists may have actually had in global warming was "slight and fleeting." Its clear as day from the article:

"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....

....One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so will be hiding behind them."

When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written.""

If you'd like to post the full emails so we can read how this is all "out of context" then go for it.

[Igel]

63. The deniers have moved on.

They're no longer citing--and the real die-hard deniers never cited--most of the emails. At least not in isolation.

They've moved on to code and the comments in the code, to interim analyses, to choices made in analysis and data selection, and to how some of the comments in the emails match up with those.

One is for PR purposes and could be readily understood and discussed by English and journalism majors. The other is for actual challenges, and "physics for poets" won't give you any kind of hook into it. So it makes sense that reporters were focused first on the sensationalistic emails in isolation, and now the emails in isolation. It gives the impression of being comprehensive in dealing with a load of data without actually needing to deal with any of the yucky numbers.

[Viking12]

45. really? no one has? did you read the article?

are you beavis or butthead?

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/P70SlEqX7oY

[WriteDown]

56. Read post 54. nt

[Viking12]

57. Post #54 doesn't indicate whether you are beavis or butthead.

It does illustrate that, like beavis and butthead, you don't have a very good grasp of the English language.

[WriteDown]

60. I bow to your extremely sound and well thought out argument.. nt

[quakerboy]

58. I've seen them put into context several times

I guess you havn't been paying attention.

[WriteDown]

62. Please feel free to cite where they have been put into context. nt

[quakerboy]

66. Or you could just read threads you have posted in.

Seeing as I recall your posts prominently present in the thread, and all. But I recall just as clearly that your compatriots were equally unwilling to look at the quotations with an open mind. The fact is that reading them, even taken out of context, and using a modicum of logic presents easily accessible explanations.

[WriteDown]

67. Once again....

Please feel free to cite them. If you can't or have to deflect, I'll understand.

[quakerboy]

68. Feel free to think about things

Which snippets would you like to have explained?

[WriteDown]

69. Deflection. Thank you! nt

[quakerboy]

70. yes, you are

I asked you a specific question. Which choice tidbits of the thousands of emails do you want explained? You cant give an answer, so you deflect. Good job

[WriteDown]

79. Once again....

cite a specific cherry picked quote that was taken out of context and then put back into context or at least admit you can. See post 54 for how things are taken out of context and then how things are put back into context.

[quakerboy]

86. There is more than one form of context

There is the textual context of the email each quote was taken from. There is also the broader context of the reasoning and circumstances behind the sending of these emails, as well as the reasoning behind the attitudes of the emailers. Then there is the context of the language choices, many based on their common shared vernacular within the field they work in, which I am pretty sure you are not generally involved in. To consider these snippets of emails without those contexts is very much similar to considering the bible without the context of who wrote it, why, when and where. It ends you up looking like a loonie, and gives you free reign to make any interpretation you want.

First, I would direct you to:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt

But because I am pretty sure that you will not spend the time reading, here is your specific cherry picked quote

"6. Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”

The textual context can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack

A significant portion of the rest of the context is as follows:

"The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate’ -Gavin Schmidt.

Surely if your aim is to ‘hide’ something then publishing it in Nature is probably not a great move …"

You could also look to
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/michael-mann-re.html
for understanding of the context of that Email

[WriteDown]

87. Kind of like how Bush's War in Iraq had such a wide context...

for peace in the Middle East, disarming Iran, world politics? Haha, I've heard it all. You and I both know that when the anyone talks about these emails being taken out of context, they are talking about the usual verbal/grammatical context. I read your links and while they are very interesting they don't EVER try to put the emails into context such as is done in post 54.

[quakerboy]

99. You keep referencing post 54.

That is taking something out of context, not putting it in. What are you even trying to say?

I posted the full textual context, a link the full email in question. That meets the requirements of your narrow version of context. I also posted other links where the persons involved provide more context and information pertaining to the information in the email. That you cannot or will not read and apply that information says more about you than about me.

I have provided exactly what you requested, and then went the extra mile in obtaining background information regarding the issue. I am done with your obfuscation and denial. You can refuse to listen to someone else now.

[WriteDown]

103. I read your links and not once did anyone try to take

cherry-picked sentences and put them back into context like showing that the surrounding sentences paragraphs showed the sentence had a diffferent meaning. If I am mistaken, it should be easy enough to post the sentence and its context.

[acsmith]

90. i am a scientist..

...and trick means cheat.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. No; for instance, "tricks of the trade"

does not mean "ways those in the trade cheat". It means "clever ideas that those with experience in a field know and use".

[acsmith]

92. but you implied

that for scientists trick didn't mean cheat and it does.

you can change you tact now but it doesn't change the fact that you were talking shite before.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. Sorry, no-one imposes extra restrictions on how scientists use words

They're allowed to use the same meanings we all are. I have no idea what you are refering to when you say I was 'talking shite before'; that was the first time I posted in this thread, and you've given us no clue as to what other thread you may be refering to.

The word you were looking for is 'tack', by the way. When you're trying to pontificate about the use of language, it's advisable to use the correct word.

[WriteDown]

105. What are the other meanings of "hide?"

We need to put this all in context:

""I've just completed 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."

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. The meaning of that is fairly clear

they didn't want to show that recent temperatures are falling when, quite plainly, they are not. So they wanted to hide the decline in temperatures that the tree rings seem to show since 1961, and use the real temperatures instead.

Why the tree ring proxy diverges from reality in these recent years is a good question, worth investigation. But ther temperature record in those years is clear, from other sources. The world has been warming. It's a shame the contrarians seem to not care about that though, and are pretending that this means global warming hasn't happened. I'd love to see the emails in which they've talked to each other about that ...

[WriteDown]

109. No, it was an attempt to cover up data which didn't match

the conclusion that they wanted. As cited in the next line of the article.

"Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted."

Of course all we'll have to do is recheck the raw data and that should give us....oh....wait....

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. Are you claiming that temperatures haven't gone up after 1960?

Are you saying the thermometers and satellites are all wrong, but the tree rings show that global temperatures have gone down?

[WriteDown]

112. I'm saying that as a scientist....

you can't pick and choose your data. Agreed?

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. I agree you've got to show that temperatures went up since 1960

because you have direct measurements of it for that era, rather than proxy measurements.

It would be absurd to draw a temperature grpah and claim that the temperature went down when you know it went up.

Wow, looks like they did have a choice after all - choose the proxy, or the direct measurement. They went with the direct measurement. Seems like good science to me.

[WriteDown]

114. If it was good scientists then...

Then they would have not had to use tricks to hide things. Of course we can always recheck the raw data and exonerate these transgressions...oh...wait.

[panzerfaust]

125. Some possible explanations

... are that the tree-ring data diverges from instrumented data because the tree growth is being altered by a rapid increase in mean temperature, by larger extremes in temperature, by consistent change in available moisture, by atmospheric pollution, by non-degraded industrial chemicals carried into the soil, by changes in the plant/fungal association (which is coming to be recognized as important in all plant growth)... and so on, and on. Might even be something completely different, might even be some sort of artifact.

That is science: an endless series of questions about the world.

The point is, if one has a choice of measuring something using a biologic surrogate, or by direct measurement, which method is more likely to be correct?

And the tree-ring data was 'hidden' by being published along with the instrument data. Not exactly what most of us would take to be hiding something.
The 'hidden' dataset is the green line in the below graph.



But if the boffins hid it, why is it there at all?

[panzerfaust]

128. cf: Post 125 (vide infra)

[acsmith]

93. p.s.

please don't post until you have checked dictionary.com next time.

[Uncle Joe]

94. Is cheat the only definition for trick, please don't post until you read this post

with defintions from dictionary.com?

1. a crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like, intended to deceive or cheat; artifice; ruse; wile.
2. an optical illusion: It must have been some visual trick caused by the flickering candlelight.
3. a roguish or mischievous act; practical joke; prank: She likes to play tricks on her friends.
4. a mean, foolish, or childish action.
5. a clever or ingenious device or expedient; adroit technique: the tricks of the trade.
6. the art or knack of doing something skillfully: You seem to have mastered the trick of making others laugh.
7. a clever or dexterous feat intended to entertain, amuse, etc.: He taught his dog some amazing tricks.
8. a feat of magic or legerdemain: card tricks.
9. a behavioral peculiarity; trait; habit; mannerism.
10. a period of duty or turn; stint; tour of duty: I relieved the pilot after he had completed his trick at the wheel.
11. Cards.
a. the group or set of cards played and won in one round.
b. a point or scoring unit.
c. a card that is a potential winner. Compare HONOR TRICK.
12. Informal. a child or young girl: a pretty little trick.
13. Slang.
a. a prostitute's customer.
b. a sexual act between a prostitute and a customer.

14. Heraldry."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trick

[acsmith]

you are clearly talking out of your arse.

there is no point discussing with children sometimes.

[Uncle Joe]

96. I just posted other definitions of trick from your own chosen website,

and you have no rebuttal.

[WriteDown]

106. You have anymore definitions for "hide?"

Context is important as so many have said

"I've just completed 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."

[Uncle Joe]

132. Yes here is the definitiion of hide and just for you the definition of context and a couple of

questions.

Do you know the context of that sentence you just posted? What is the scientist referring to and what is his motivation for "hiding the decline"?

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.
–verb (used without object)
4. to conceal oneself; lie concealed: He hid in the closet.
–noun
5. British. a place of concealment for hunting or observing wildlife; hunting blind.
—Verb phrase
6. hide out, to go into or remain in hiding: After breaking out of jail, he hid out in a deserted farmhouse.


con⋅text
   ˈkɒn tɛkstShow Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–noun
1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
3. Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms

[Uncle Joe]

95. p.s.

hints of other possible definitions were bolded.

[quakerboy]

97. If you are a scientist, then why so thoughtless when it comes to language?

Trick is used in any number of contexts. Trick of the Trade, for instance. Looking up the word trick, we get your meaning

1 a : a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud b : a mischievous act : prank c : an indiscreet or childish action d : a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat; especially : one designed to puzzle or amuse <a juggler's tricks>

But we also get other equally valid definitions

2 a : a habitual peculiarity of behavior or manner <a horse with the trick of shying> b : a characteristic and identifying feature <a trick of speech> c : a delusive appearance especially when caused by art or legerdemain : an optical illusion <a mere trick of the light>
3 a (1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack <the trick is to make it look natural> (2) : an instance of getting a desired result <one small adjustment will do the trick> b : a technical device (as of an art or craft) <the tricks of stage technique>

The third being the most interesting to me, and the context that the word is used in any number of professional or real life scenarios. "the trick of it is, you just wiggle it this way, then it goes in, see" I ran into that one on a company car that didn't want to shift into gear last week.

Given that their data has independent confirmation, whereas your opinion does not, I think I will give them, rather than you, the benefit of the doubt. And given that their explanation makes much more sense given my scientific training than your unsubstantiated claim, I will double down on that.

[acsmith]

98. well done for thinking that defnition is the same a meaning

i am just telling you as a scientist what it means. it is not what the poster meant so i wanted to call him out.

[quakerboy]

100. lets try this again.

Definition:
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.


When you say "the poster" who are you talking about? I am the "poster" of the quote, and it is clear to me that that was exactly what was meant in the quote in question. Or did you mean the person originally quoted? The same stands true there, its fairly clear that that is EXACTLY what he meant, and that his meaning had absolutely nothing to do with your proposed definition.


In the mean time, I question your "scientist" credentials. Say something only a scientist would say. Heh.

[panzerfaust]

124. In the quoted usage "trick" = "neat," "clever," or "cool" (eg "Tricked Out Car")

Not that this particular effort is really trick.

[panzerfaust]

123. Well reasoned, well written, well documented.

Thank you for taking the time.

[LanternWaste]

77. One would think that the greatest critics

One would think that the greatest critics of the research would do that to better validate their own positions and beliefs...

[Kali]

33. they aren't interested in reality or facts

so whether they read it or not is irrelevant

we need to have some more pizza delivered around here

skepticism is fine, deliberate ignorance is tiresome

[WriteDown]

36. Kind of like our own inquisition..

I like it.

[Kali]

42. speaking of tiresome

your attempts to compare fundamental religious behavior to the well deserved contempt people feel for denialists cloaking their "skepticism" in terms of poutrage over some missing data they can't even comprehend are laughable but still tiresome.

[WriteDown]

52. Denialist..

Sounds kind of like infidel or heretic. Awesome!

[No Elephants]

73. I believe in climate change. But hiding or discarding things that don't support your theory is NOT

science.

[WriteDown]

82. We're in the same boat...

I question the degree and speed and causes, but not the phenomenon.

[MH1]

84. some light reading for you

if you are interested:

http://enviroknow.com/2009/12/10/pew-center-on-global-climate-change-releases-swifthack-climategate-background-document/


excerpts (emphasis mine):

In an email dated Nov. 12, 1999, Prof. Phil Jones stated that he had used a “trick” to “hide the decline.” The email does not say what decline he was talking about, so it has been widely misreported that he was hiding a decline in temperatures. Those reports are not correct, nor is it accurate to say that he was actually hiding data, even though he chose the word. The word “trick” was used as it is in common parlance to mean a clever solution to a problem (e.g., “I know a trick to get that stain off your shirt.”). The decline he said he was hiding referred to one series of high‐latitude tree ring data from 1960 to 1994 that did not follow measured temperatures at the same locations, even though they had followed measured temperatures for about a century before 1960. That set of tree ring data incorrectly implied a downward temperature trend after 1960. It cannot be said that Jones was literally hiding this fact because two years before he wrote this email he was a co‐author on the first paper to document this “divergence” issue. That paper, published in Nature in February of 1998, concluded publicly that these post‐1960 tree ring data produce inaccurate temperature estimates (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/full/ 391678a0.html). Hence, “hiding” this decline simply meant following the advice that Jones and colleagues had since already aired in the peer‐reviewed literature two years earlier. Many more papers havebeen published on the same topic.

The email was discussing a presentation, not a formal paper. If you've ever had to put together a presentation where you struggle to convey a lot of information effectively in a short time, to people who might not all share a certain level of background knowledge, then you are grateful for "tricks" you've learned from others to get your message across.

[tabatha]

25. Conflicting statements within two paragraphs:

"The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts"

"The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven"

[Igel]

64. There's a perfectly valid interpretation

that lets both statements stand.

"Guinea pigs are mammals and, as such, have four legs. The guinea pig my 6th grade class had was 3-legged."

"Scientists harbored private doubts." All of them? Some of them? Did they let their doubts actually impede their publications and advocacy? Were the doubts harbored consistently, or did they arise late in the discourse or vanish during the discourse? So many questions, and English grammar says so little.

My minister harbored private doubts about the rightness of interfering in the lay members' private decisions; the next day he got up and said before his sermon that half a dozen people were kicked out of the church as of that moment and we were to shun them or face the same fate. His "private doubts" were made private to very few; I worked in the church office and overheard him discussing it with his wife. His private doubts sometimes affected his behavior; typically he allowed his drive to overrule them, a great failing on his part.

"The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven. . ." All the scientists? Or just a specific group of them, which is one way of understanding "the" (as a group identified in the verbal context)? Or is there some other reading? Did they become convinced after initial doubts or did the doubts creep in later?

Really--it takes a bit of good will and reasonableness in understanding that when there are competing interpretations, *we* don't get to decide the one and only interpretion that somebody else intended just because it suits *us*. When others speak, it's not always about us. As I've said before, it's quite a shock to the ol' constitution, but we're just not so important as to be at the center of everybody else's universe. There may be a contradiction here, but to glibly declare them to be contradicting is to impose readings that make them contradictory, not because they must be contradictory.

[MH1]

85. Excellent post.

(I can't help but wonder about a church that kicks people out and orders others to "shun" them ... but let's not go there. :) The point is excellent and the story helps illustrate it.)

[panzerfaust]

129. "Guinea pigs are mammals and, as such, have four legs..."

"as such" ... thus humans cannot be mammals. Q.E.D.
:cry:
Interesting. I liked being a mammal.

Though the superclass Tetrapoda within the infraphylum Gnathostomata, does imply one's having four legs, I was unaware that at the taxonomic level of "class" being tetrapodal was part of the definitional characteristics of Mammalia.

I thought it had something to do with breasts, middle ear ossicular chain, presence of separate thoracic and coelomic cavities, type of embryological development and so on. I do like the "breast" bit best though.

Oh, and I guess neither whales are either (having no legs at all):


Learn something new everyday: If you are not careful.

Oh, I suppose if one were an Evilutionist, one could make the claim that human arms are "evolved" legs, and that whales have "devolved" limbs - but then where would that lead to?

Perhaps to the same sort of confusion as that between boffins being simultaneously tortured by doubt, whilst being so certain in their belief that they would torture their data.

Perhaps not.

[Soylent Brice]

28. K&R and bookmarked.

[MH1]

29. interesting point about the alleged "suppression" angle

from the article:

When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

It was certainly dubious of the journal to publish a study that was funded by the API, who clearly have a conflict of interest.

[rayofreason]

32. I don't believe that they faked the science...

...but that does not mean that confirmation bias is not at work, particularly when there IS evidence that the peer-review process was distorted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Viking12]

46. What evidence would that be?

[rayofreason]

115. Evidence. Hmm...

The CRU emails talk about "plugging the leak at GRL" with the departure an editor removed who had allowed a paper questioning AGW to get published. Another email talks about "redefining the peer-reviewed literature" to exclude papers from the IPCC report. Other emails talk about convincing colleagues not to submit to or cite papers from Climate Research

This is a distortion of the peer-review process. So is not making original data (not just adjusted data) available to other who want to questions your work. In fact, any scientist who doesn't want people to question his/her work should be viewed with suspicion. And speaking of what the original data show, here is an interesting exposition.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Another interesting question is where did the Medieval Warm Period go? The MWP is missing from the hockey stick, as is the Little Ice Age. But historical records show that Greenlanders actually grew grain in Greenland, which to my knowledge cannot be done now. Historical records suggest that the MWP was real as well, so that we are not seeing unprecedented temperatures now, but rather we have temps that are within historical range.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ge2003/ge2003.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/chuine2004/chuine2004.html

This is not to say that we are not influencing climate. We are pumping lots of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) into the air, and we should move rapidly to shift as much industrial production of energy as possible to non-Co2 generating sources, which means primarily nuclear power, since solar, wind, etc., can only provide a tiny fraction of what is needed. But this question of whether we are the major driver of the climate and whether confirmation bias has had a role in things like the elimination of the MWP from recent climate reconstructions should be examined. It also raises the question of whether we need to spend trillions of dollars to distort our economies, reduce future standards of living, provide politicians in developed countries with vast new opportunities for graft, and give despotic kleptocrats opportunities for even more corruption and outright theft (I see Mugabe is in Copenhagen - Can you say "Carbon Credits"?).

[Viking12]

118. LOL. You really need to develop some critical thinking skills.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

Another interesting question is where did the Medieval Warm Period go? The MWP is missing from the hockey stick, as is the Little Ice Age.

This is so ignorant that it doesn't deserve a response but I'll play along:



The MWP is not "missing" in any of these reconstructions. It is simply a) not global in scope and b) not as warm as the late 20th century into the early 21st. The Little ice Age is right there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[boppers]

47. Confirmation bias is best countered by independent replication.

In this case, it was countered by replication using not only different science groups, but different data sets, and even different fields of study.

[rayofreason]

116. Perhaps...

...or perhaps not.

The various "independent" confirmations seem to connect to a web of scientists and to a small number of data sets that were manipulated to correct them before arriving at the findings. Other people have come to different conclusions based on the same data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-a... /

And other, historical data seem to support the idea of a Medieval Warm Period where the temperatures are as warm or warmer than they are today, something that was eliminated in the temperature reconstruction referred to as the "Hockey Stick."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ge2003/ge2003.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/chuine2004/chuine20...

So, in fact, confirmation bias could be at work in the relatively small circle that constitutes the climate science leadership today, though I agree with your basic point that confirmation bias is best countered by independent replication. That is why much more scrutiny and openness (data, rationale for adjusting data, computer codes, etc.) is needed before the question can be answered.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, UpInArms.

[Kingofalldems]

44. So the RWers, freepers and disruptors are wrong again

[Canuckistanian]

51. Whew! That was close. Thanks, AP.

I thought the whole theory of climate change was in mortal danger because of the actions of a few people 10 years ago.

Good thing AP was on the job.

[Igel]

65. I don't know what "fake the science" means.

I honestly don't.

Fake the data? Claim they're going to adjust the data for X variables and instead adjust it for Y variables? Conduct an analysis that's different from the one they claim they're doing? Just present claims and make up a story that's unconnected with the data and any sort of believable analysis?

The complaints that I've seen have been reasonable: Temperature measurements for a single station that hasn't moved adjusted based on. . . ? Making routine adjustments for when an observation station moves but not questioning whether the "routine adjustment" is appropriate in all cases. Being a bit obscure in how they extrapolate to weight data points in deriving a global average. Using sea level measurements but ignoring subsidence. Using tree ring data to adjust temperature measurements for some years (tree ring data more reliable than thermometers) but rejecting it later (tree ring data less reliable than thermometers).

Perhaps reading the actual published papers would help. Science reporters bear a lot of the blame, IMHO, because they want science news to be exciting--as an analogous example, you hear when a stem cell treatment advances to clinical trials but that it's adult stem cells may be relegated to paragraph 10 and dropped from the 5-paragraph article appearing in most papers; and when the trial's cancelled it's simply not reported.

So when a climatologist compares extratropical average temperature in one year to the global average in a different year, and then compare the difference between those two with the first quarter global average in a third year, there's some meaning there--but it's not the same as comparing the earth's temperature between three different years, which is how it'd come out in the NYT.

[No Elephants]

71. Hiding data does not affect "the science?" So, the Church's wanting to silence Galileo, Newton

and others was no big deal,then? I knew it! I knew it! I knew it!



:silly:

[MH1]

76. No data was hidden ... WTF are you on about?

[FVZA_Colonel]

89. None of the e-mails support the idea that they actually went ahead with this.

However bad it looks that they discussed this, there is no proof at all that they actually acted on these discussions.

I wish this were being made clearer in the wider reporting on this issue.

[WriteDown]

107. Went ahead with what?

Altering data or blocking information requests?

[WriteDown]

83. Be careful..

You're about to labeled a denier by some of the Proctors.

[JonQ]

110. That they are being forced to acknowledge this

occured, and admit that it looks bad (even if they try to backpeddle on some of it) just shows how significant this has been. They tried their darndest to ignore it, then went with "it is irrelevant". Now it's "bad but we can manage it". The debate has come a long way in a short time. I look forward to further, less biased, investigations.