Bias media claims climate data not manipulated, ignore dissenting arguments

[Politics101]

British politicians released a report in attempt to make the ClimateGate scandal go away. The 60-page report reinterprets the term "trick" and the phrase "hide the decline" in an email by Professor Phil Jones.

MP Graham Stringer, widely recognized for insightful questioning of Jones at the Parliamentary Inquiry, voted against acceptance of the Parliamentary Inquiry report, against the inclusion of the Summary and against a number of individual items.

The bias media ignored Graham Stringer's analysis altogether, instead focusing on what they believe to be true rather than present all the information available -- like a true news source would -- and let viewers decide.

 

[Deuce]

Actually there was an investigation that concluded the data was not manipulated. The media did not claim it, merely reported it.

 

[jujuman13]

Well they would wouldn't they?

 

[texmaster]

Actually there was an investigation that concluded the data was not manipulated. The media did not claim it, merely reported it.

You forgot to mention it was a one day "investigation"

 

[Boo Radley]

British politicians released a report in attempt to make the ClimateGate scandal go away. The 60-page report reinterprets the term "trick" and the phrase "hide the decline" in an email by Professor Phil Jones.

MP Graham Stringer, widely recognized for insightful questioning of Jones at the Parliamentary Inquiry, voted against acceptance of the Parliamentary Inquiry report, against the inclusion of the Summary and against a number of individual items.

The bias media ignored Graham Stringer's analysis altogether, instead focusing on what they believe to be true rather than present all the information available -- like a true news source would -- and let viewers decide.

All arguments are not created equal. Treating them as equal, would be showing bias. This thread shows once again the lack of knowledge and understanding of both news and bias.

 

[Boo Radley]

Actually there was an investigation that concluded the data was not manipulated. The media did not claim it, merely reported it.

Good point. And it would be biased to ignore that. Reporting it is what a news organization should do.

 

[Deuce]

You forgot to mention it was a one day "investigation"

Wouldn't take long. Brief rundown of the "evidence" from the emails.

Phrase 1: "Trick." Trick, in the scientific community, refers to something clever, not something deceptive. "I found a trick for measuring fungus growth without touching and damaging it!" This term is used in pretty much every field, it even ends up in official papers and publications.

Phrase 2: "Hide the decline." Out of context sounds bad. The discussion was not about temperature records as a whole. The decline they were talking about is in the later half of the 20th century, and we have concrete, direct measurements of temperatures in that period, these numbers are not in question. The discussion this email was referring to was about tree ring data. The tree ring data appeared to diverge from the known temperature record during this period, and the scientists were discussing whether tree ring data could be considered accurate because of it. Fortunately, some of the discrepancies have since been accounted for, and this can be tested by running the tree-ring model backwards against known temperature data. It now matches much more closely. Additionally, tree-ring data is not the only method used for establishing historic temperatures. There are many.

Phrase 3: "We can't account for the lack of warming. It's a travesty that we can't account for it." This was one scientist expressing his personal opinion, and you didn't need to hack the email account to find this. Nothing was being hidden, because the same scientists expressed this very same sentiment in a previously published paper. If this was a secret conspiracy, he was doing it wrong. Published theories are not secrets! Responding to that email were several other scientists with a differing opinion: Yes, actually, you can account for it. (La Nina cooling effect and a slight drop in solar irradiance if I remember right)

If there are other "smoking guns" in the emails, I've not heard of them. The blogosphere focused on these. If you have more, I'm all ears. (eyes?)

 

[Politics101]

Wouldn't take long. Brief rundown of the "evidence" from the emails.

Phrase 1: "Trick." Trick, in the scientific community, refers to something clever, not something deceptive. "I found a trick for measuring fungus growth without touching and damaging it!" This term is used in pretty much every field, it even ends up in official papers and publications.

That'll do the trick. Hopefully you helped hide the fact that, in the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors. The trick is to forget about the manipulated data and focus on the emails, excellent work.

Phrase 2: "Hide the decline." Out of context sounds bad. The discussion was not about temperature records as a whole. The decline they were talking about is in the later half of the 20th century, and we have concrete, direct measurements of temperatures in that period, these numbers are not in question. The discussion this email was referring to was about tree ring data. The tree ring data appeared to diverge from the known temperature record during this period, and the scientists were discussing whether tree ring data could be considered accurate because of it. Fortunately, some of the discrepancies have since been accounted for, and this can be tested by running the tree-ring model backwards against known temperature data. It now matches much more closely. Additionally, tree-ring data is not the only method used for establishing historic temperatures. There are many.

You're starting to sound like the same 'the debate is over' crowd.

What discrepancies have "been accounted for," and what data is it exactly that will "match more closely" with what now?

I have no reason to take your word for granted. Please cite your claims.

Phrase 3: "We can't account for the lack of warming. It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

The problem is that the integrity of the data has been called into question. As far as I understand, none of the questions regarding the legitimacy of the manipulated data have been answered. It's just 'smoke and mirrors' - focus of the the emails! - three main areas to focus on - forget the data problems! :roll:

 

[akyron]

Wouldn't take long. Brief rundown of the "evidence" from the emails.

Phrase 1: "Trick." Trick, in the scientific community, refers to something clever, not something deceptive. "I found a trick for measuring fungus growth without touching and damaging it!" This term is used in pretty much every field, it even ends up in official papers and publications.

Phrase 2: "Hide the decline." Out of context sounds bad. The discussion was not about temperature records as a whole. The decline they were talking about is in the later half of the 20th century, and we have concrete, direct measurements of temperatures in that period, these numbers are not in question. The discussion this email was referring to was about tree ring data. The tree ring data appeared to diverge from the known temperature record during this period, and the scientists were discussing whether tree ring data could be considered accurate because of it. Fortunately, some of the discrepancies have since been accounted for, and this can be tested by running the tree-ring model backwards against known temperature data. It now matches much more closely. Additionally, tree-ring data is not the only method used for establishing historic temperatures. There are many.

Phrase 3: "We can't account for the lack of warming. It's a travesty that we can't account for it." This was one scientist expressing his personal opinion, and you didn't need to hack the email account to find this. Nothing was being hidden, because the same scientists expressed this very same sentiment in a previously published paper. If this was a secret conspiracy, he was doing it wrong. Published theories are not secrets! Responding to that email were several other scientists with a differing opinion: Yes, actually, you can account for it. (La Nina cooling effect and a slight drop in solar irradiance if I remember right)

If there are other "smoking guns" in the emails, I've not heard of them. The blogosphere focused on these. If you have more, I'm all ears. (eyes?)

Straws...firmly grasped... wont... let gooo.

 

[Politics101]

Straws...firmly grasped... wont... let gooo.

:beatdeadhorse It! :beatdeadhorse Is! :beatdeadhorse Real!

Global warming will scorch the world and it's ALL YOUR FAULT! :sword:

 

[Deuce]

Straws...firmly grasped... wont... let gooo.

Is there anything else scandalous from the e-mails that you'd like me to debunk?

 

[hazlnut]

Actually there was an investigation that concluded the data was not manipulated. The media did not claim it, merely reported it.

Stop bringing facts into the hyper-partisan fantasy world.

Politics 101 can't hear anything the contradicts his world view.

You're screwing up a perfectly good far-rightie thread by stating the obvious.

They think that some guy's blog is more reliable than... um, NASA... I know, it sounds retarded, but, God love 'em, they can't get enough of that dark red kool-aide.