It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AP Caught Misleading On Climategate

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hey Red,
The time when academia was the bell weather for truth ended in the 60's. I agree that in times past they were the arbiter of great thinkers and great solutions. Now, it seems to be the outlet for corporate input and false solutions. Most tenured Profs don't even enter the class room other than to take bows and kudos and then run off to publish the latest politically engineered tome to gain acceptance in the latest giveaway of our tax dollars. Their grad students do the teaching. Those that still adhere to the rule of peer reviewed science deserve special attention and real applause in their efforts. They are a dieing breed and should be revered!

Zindo




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Science has become corrupted by public funding. Often times scientists are required to come to pre-determined conclusions based upon whoever funded their studies.

With the majority of these funds coming from govt, most studies confirm whatever helps to enlarge govt powers further.

Those studies that are privately funded are ALWAYS attacked by saying the funders of the study had an agenda.

As if the govt didn't have an agenda...



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
As if the govt didn't have an agenda...


Bad, bad government.


This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

dinky-link



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This reminds me of Dan Rather on CBS. Fake documents used
to try to fool the American people. Soon the story wasn't about
George W. Bush. It was the deception exposed about Dan Rather
and his fake documents.
------------------------------------------------------------
ClimateGate is real.
hide the decline = hide the truth
----------------------------------------
The NEW question for 2010: "Are you a Global Warming Hoax denier?"
Oh! So you DENY there is a Global Warming Hoax!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Thank you, melatonin for prooving my point for me.


The MSM was all over GW Bush anytime he did anything counter to their agenda. When he tried manipulating science like all of his predicessors had done, they slapped him down hard. (They didn't challenge him on 9-11 because that fit into the plans of TPTB to increase police state powers.)

You have to remember that, during Bush's time in office, the UN's scientific arm was busy funding report after report backing up their big govt agenda.

The MSM never called out his Democratic predicessors or the UN because they were working to bring about the NWO agenda the MSM so blatantly supports.

It took a slightly right wing news outlet to call the AP on their deception, and even then, the editorial was ignored for the most part.

I might buy into the MMGW business if they proposed policies that would actually DO SOMETHING to reduce global warming. Instead, they create cap & tax schemes that will do nothing to reduce temperatures and are only designed to create funding for their dreamed of one world government.

Their do-nothing solutions proove to me that MMGW is nothing but a lie created to snatch up more power for TPTB.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Thank you, melatonin for prooving my point for me.


The MSM was all over GW Bush anytime he did anything counter to their agenda. When he tried manipulating science like all of his predicessors had done, they slapped him down hard. (They didn't challenge him on 9-11 because that fit into the plans of TPTB to increase police state powers.)

You have to remember that, during Bush's time in office, the UN's scientific arm was busy funding report after report backing up their big govt agenda.

The MSM never called out his Democratic predicessors or the UN because they were working to bring about the NWO agenda the MSM so blatantly supports.


So when you said this:


Science has become corrupted by public funding. Often times scientists are required to come to pre-determined conclusions based upon whoever funded their studies.

With the majority of these funds coming from govt, most studies confirm whatever helps to enlarge govt powers further.


...you actually didn't mean that science was corrupted by government/public funding during a Bush government who were found to be repeatedly interfering with the science and altering official reports on climate science, but that it was the UN and MSM causing scientists funded by US public agencies to say things that the Bush government didn't like because they want a one-world government to take your blankie...

...or some other random flexible nonsense you can throw together ad-hoc.


It took a slightly right wing news outlet to call the AP on their deception, and even then, the editorial was ignored for the most part.


Slightly. lol


I might buy into the MMGW business if they proposed policies that would actually DO SOMETHING to reduce global warming. Instead, they create cap & tax schemes that will do nothing to reduce temperatures and are only designed to create funding for their dreamed of one world government.


There is a difference between the actual science saying problematic stuff, and the exact solutions proposed to act on the problematic stuff. Although, hard to get far from the problematic issue, which here is rising levels of GHGs and other human activities.

But I'm seeing where you're coming from. Take care. Ciao.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I'm not justifying Bush's hijacking of science. He got caught and got called on it and that was right.

The problem arrises when those same standards are not applied across both sides of the isle. Whoever has control of the pursestrings controls the direction of the scientific studies they choose to fund.

When a conservative does it, the MSM scream bloody murder and rightfully so. When a liberal does it we get silence or the MSM leaps to their defence, as was shown in the AP article.

The whole process has destroyed the public confidence in science. Science needs to get back to it's proper role; propose a theory and then try to disproove it. If it stands up to scrutiny it MAY be correct.

Instead we get scientists who fight to their dying breath against anyone who dares challenge their pet thesis. That's not good scientific method, that's just plain stupid!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
I'm not justifying Bush's hijacking of science. He got caught and got called on it and that was right.

The problem arrises when those same standards are not applied across both sides of the isle. Whoever has control of the pursestrings controls the direction of the scientific studies they choose to fund.

When a conservative does it, the MSM scream bloody murder and rightfully so. When a liberal does it we get silence or the MSM leaps to their defence, as was shown in the AP article.


But I don't think that the AP article shows the Obama government doing what was found for the Bush crew. Moreover, the scientists have done little wrong. You can make accusations of fraud, but unlike the Bush situation, they are mere accusations unsupported by any evidence.

The Times article you are pushing is as rubbish as the AP headline. I agree, the headline in the AP article was crap - not uncommon. We also agree that Bush et al. were actively working to distort science.

However, as noted, headlines are often crap and not really representative of the actual article. Indeed, just reading the first paragraph shows that there is little argument between the Times and AP on the issue of supporting 'faked or not faked':


BY SETH BORENSTEIN, RAPHAEL SATTER and MALCOLM RITTER, Associated Press Writers Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter And Malcolm Ritter, Associated Press Writers – Sat Dec 12, 5:58 pm ET
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.


So if you want to call the headline misleading, fine. But the actual AP article is fine. It just didn't have the angle the Times wanted - 'we should investigate a group of scientists smeared as dishonest by deniers misrepresenting a bunch of stolen emails which show no evidence of fraud'.

It's crazy. It's like taking someone who has been burgled and then calling for an investigation because you just happen to spuriously believe they are a paedophile and the stolen items included a picture of a half-dressed child who actually happened to be their son/daughter.


The whole process has destroyed the public confidence in science. Science needs to get back to it's proper role; propose a theory and then try to disproove it. If it stands up to scrutiny it MAY be correct.


You mean do exactly what climate science has been doing? The science underpinning this issue goes back 150 years. When people did this study:


Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001


Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges

1.Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: j.harries@ic.ac.uk).


Top of pageThe evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.


It was a assessing a clear testable and falsifiable hypothesis of the effects of GHG-induced global warming.

But you've picked out the similarities between what Bush was doing and what the likes of the Wash Times and deniers in general are doing. It's a PR war to denigrate one area of science that is underpinning the call for actions that are ideologically distasteful for a particular group of people. And so the strategy is to deny and delay - it's not about doing positive sicence. The Wash Times is trying to use the call for investigations to further tar a group of scientists that were the victims of a crime and have been smeared/swiftboated (we generally investigate those in which we suspect a crime/wrongdoing. Indeed, we've morans even calling them criminals).

"Doubt is our product"


Instead we get scientists who fight to their dying breath against anyone who dares challenge their pet thesis. That's not good scientific method, that's just plain stupid!


As was pointed out by one of the people in the AP, scientists are people - they have the possibility of all the flaws of people. However, it's strength is in the community working effectively. It didn't matter that Einstein had his pet ideas and hated aspects of quantum theory and held that to his dying days. The other scientists just went about their business. The evidence always wins through.

Science is like evolution of ideas in action. Like free market competition. Those challenging the science are free to present their case, and those who disagree can vehemently disagree and eviscerate that case. Science is not for the faint-hearted, dear.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join