AP: Climate science not faked, but not pretty
Surfer
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
(AP) � Dec 12, 2009
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.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the
climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast
England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted
online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted
the police.
The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters
reading and rereading them � about 1 million words in total.
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 I 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."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated
Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't
believe anybody else did."
The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal.
When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through
the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan
claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan
threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist
Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared
him of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!"
Jones wrote in June 2007.
In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic
because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab
scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything
the skeptic wanted � and more. Santer said in a telephone interview
that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics
that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming
skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one
critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans
that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish
quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a
third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a
scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very
tempted."
And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph
McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.
Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in
1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the
heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are
taken out of context."
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.
The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate
science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it
was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and
glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to
last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of
e-mails.
Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate
change over long periods.
As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues
from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks
were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and
science policy.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still
within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at
Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal
and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but
research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of
society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the
high political stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime
opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted
excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former
vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either
independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the
Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of
corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present
the data as convincingly as possible.
One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages
were posted online is from Jones. He says: "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."
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.
Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.
David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for
a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has
clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter
2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed
to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast
body of research over the years.
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. Nor did it alter their
support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, which some of the scientists helped write.
"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made)
global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said
Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a
National Academy of Sciences study that looked at � and upheld as
valid � Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest
years in centuries.
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be
perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown,"
North said.
Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing
to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures
During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and
Limitations."
Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or
retooling their arguments to answer online arguments � even as they
claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet
"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the
University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are
making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around
1450AD."
One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre,
who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues
with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.
"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that
they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in
a telephone interview.
McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says
he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry,
which produces greenhouse gases.
Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from
scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good
science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data
given to him.
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've
done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails.
"Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."
The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a
"bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.
"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these
people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."
The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference
to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported
with "a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or
re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was
released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter,
one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard
step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
___
Associated Press writers Jeff Donn in Boston, Justin Pritchard in Los
Angeles contributed to this report. Troy Thibodeaux in Washington
provided technical assistance. Satter reported from London, Borenstein
from Washington and Ritter from New York.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Find behind-the-scenes information, blog posts and
discussion about the Copenhagen climate conference at
http://www.facebook.com/theclimatepool, a Facebook page run by AP and
an array of international news agencies. Follow coverage and blogging
of the event on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/AP_ClimatePool.
Copyright � 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
b oo n
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:oua8j5ptqismcmklb...@4ax.com...
> AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
> 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.
>
Oh really?
This evidence shows nothing but fakery!!!
Climate Data Tampering Warms The Planet!
Climate Data Tampering Warms Australia
Climate Data Tampering Warms Darwin
Climate Data Tampering Warms New Zealand
Climate Data Tampering Warms Russia
Climate Data Tampering Warms Alaska
Climate Data Tampering Warms Sweden
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/making_sweden_warmer/
Fraudulent Hockey Sticks And Hidden Data
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660
Would You Buy A Used Car From These So-Called "Scientists"?
Our gullible alarmist friends have obviously fallen for this scam hook,
line, and sinker!
First we had the IPCC report "The Science of Climate Change 1995", where
lead auther Benjamin D. Santer removed the following conclusions made by
genuine scientists, and without the scientists being made aware of this
change.
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely
to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability
of the climate system are reduced."
Then we have some choice quotes from so-called "consensus scientists".
"The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been
after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom
of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send to anyone."
Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and
I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
[cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment,
and it is a travesty that we can't .there should be even more warming... the
data are surely wrong".
Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
"...If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the
science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't
being political, it is being selfish. "
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to get rid of the Medi�val Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck, which Prof. Deming didn't
deny in an email response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements,
and make little mention of any doubts we might have." Professor Stephen
Schneider
"Humans need a common motivation ... either a real one or else one invented
for the purpose. ... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by
human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome
declaration
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Now what conclusion would a rational and sceptical person come to?
Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman
of the George C. Marshall Institute, summed it up nicely after seeing the
changes made to the IPCC report.
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC
report."
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Neil Gerace
> 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
The claims are that *some* of the science was sexed up. Journos love their sweeping generalisations, don't they!
Morton Davis
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980
>
>
> LONDON - E-mails stolen
They were obtained after the climate crooks refused to release their data as
required under the freedom of information act. Man made climate change is a
lie.