so you just posted out of context snipits.... par for the course.
any honest person would put everything out to there to prove their case while a dishonest person wouldn't...
why does your side ALWAYS use ot of context statements to prove their case?
Isn't that enough context?
Here's one of them that Darrin posted:
938018124.txt
The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.
The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming -- two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.
In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."
Nice having the right cronies watching their backs.
A few of those emails so show intentional scientific fraud. Try all you want to white-wash it. You cannot, and look the fool trying to.
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise.
Scientists at CRU use tree-ring data and other "proxy" measurements to estimate temperatures from times before instrumental temperature data began to be collected. However, since about 1960, tree-ring data have diverged from actual measured temperatures. Far from covering it up, CRU scientists and others have published reports of this divergence many times. The "trick" that Jones was writing about in his 1999 e-mail was simply adding the actual, measured instrumental data into a graph of historic temperatures. Jones says it’s a “trick” in the colloquial sense of an adroit feat — "a clever thing to do," as he put it — not a deception. What’s hidden is the fact that tree-ring data in recent decades doesn’t track with thermometer measurements. East Anglia Research Professor Andrew Watson explained in an article in The Times of London:
Watson: Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that — for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context
If this was a conspiracy, it wasn’t a very successful oneAndrew Watson We non-media-savvy scientists at the University of East Anglia have learnt a hard lesson this week — the truth is not enough in the face of a media-savvy enemy.
Character assassination is a purely diversionary tactic, but in the hacked e-mails affair it has been spectacularly successful.
How many of us would emerge unscathed if all our private e-mails over 20 years were opened by someone determined to prove that we were up to no good? The hackers have picked choice phrases out of context — and context is all: without it, these statements look awful. In the one most quoted, the director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU), Phil Jones, talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline”. At first reading, this easily translates as “deceiving [politicians, other scientists, everyone] into believing the world is warming when it is actually cooling”.
But it doesn’t mean that at all. Jones is talking about a line on a graph for the cover of a World Meteorological Organisation report, published in 2000, which shows the results of different attempts to reconstruct temperature over the past 1,000 years. The line represents one particular attempt, using tree-ring data for temperature. The method agrees with actual measurements before about 1960, but diverges from them after that — for reasons only partly understood, discussed in the literature.
BACKGROUND
Saudis seize on 'Climategate' at summit
Is Russia behind the Climategate hackers?
How to gauge success at Copenhagen
Copenhagen's hot air may help cool the planet
The tree-ring measure declines, but the actual temperatures after 1960 go up. They draw the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. The notes explain that the data are “reconstructions, along with historical and long instrumental records”. Not very clear perhaps, but not much of a “trick”.
In another e-mail, Jones calls a sceptical research paper “garbage”, and says of this and another, that he “can’t see them being included” in the International Panel on Climate Change report that was being prepared. Such strong reactions are commonplace in academic research. What matters is what actually gets published. Were the papers excluded? No. Both are discussed appropriately in the report. If this was a conspiracy, it was singularly unsuccessful.
Climate sceptics would have us believe that the CRU data is invalid, and that the 20th-century warming is a construct entirely in the minds of a few scientists. This point of view surely has difficulty explaining why Arctic sea ice is declining and glaciers are retreating so rapidly, and why spring arrives earlier and autumn later than 50 years ago.
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.
Poor George.
Jones' email was distorted, "pulled out of context"
Numerous climate scientists have explained that the purportedly offensive terms have been taken out of context. Several climate scientists have criticized efforts to take Jones' email out of context. In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Scott read -- as "[o]ne example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Moreover, a November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Ins ute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." Further, RealClimate.org explained that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " and that "hiding the decline" refers to a method that is "completely appropriate."
I just kicked your ass so I feel great.. There is plenty more so I'll keep finding them to keep kicking your ass.... but,but,but there not out of context..
poor wildcobra
George, we agree that 99% of the emails are harmless, and you have plenty to show that aren't a problem. It's that 1% that proves the way they go about AGW is a lie upon society.
Kicked my ass....
My God, ignorance is bliss. Isn't it.
oh right, the 'the AGW'ers want to destroy the US economy" story..so I guess these scientists are in on it..
and I'm the ignorant one...
Yes, when you make assumptions about my points and completely disregard them without thought.oh right, the 'the AGW'ers want to destroy the US economy" story..so I guess these scientists are in on it..
and I'm the ignorant one...
You make your points without thought.
Hey, George; when the global alarmists are spending more time arguing the credibility of their sources than they are preaching the science of their position, they've already lost.
Try again in 30 years.
Two people emailing has disproved AGW? I don't think that's quite how it works.
did the terrorists have to be in on 9/11 for it to be coopted by our govt to pass the Patriot Act?oh right, the 'the AGW'ers want to destroy the US economy" story..so I guess these scientists are in on it..
and I'm the ignorant one...
Its not about the science, its about the propensities of your govt. Once you see what they see (every crisis is opportunity) you will understand the danger of such a huge "crisis" (global scale, threatens humanity), and the corresponding opportunity for those in power to use it as an excuse to steal more wealth in the name of public welfare....
and the worst part, it is an opportunity for wealth to be stolen from Americans by those abroad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
