If you think that Seth Borenstein has the scientific background that everyone else lacks… well he majored in Journalism in college, not one of the sciences. So my opinion is as good as his. Oh, who am I kidding? My opinion is WAY better than his!

btw – If you think it’s every American’s fundamental right to have global warming decided for them by someone who doesn’t have the background to understand it, you have a weird idea of rights. If I were in that situation, I would want a reporter who had a clue what the global warming issues were.

Howey, how is it that you find the lack of any mention of “mans raping of the forest” as being “curiously absent?” Neither my blog nor ekg’s addressed that. Of the hundreds of thousands of points that could be made on global warming, sadly, most of those were left out as well. A curious absence? Or not relevant to the subject at hand? I’ll leave that to you to puzzle out.

Second of all…

No. I would not trust Christine Amanpour to investigate a scandal involving CNN reporters. That is just too big a conflict of interest. Maybe this is where our disagreement lies. I just can’t see the results of such an investigation not being tainted in some way. That’s why in government they have the Inspector General system, to try to remove the people reporting and conducting the investigation from the chain of command. Of course, this administration has figured out a work around to that…

You know you wouldn’t trust the results of a Scooter Libby led investigation on the practices of the former Vice President would you? You can’t honestly investigate yourself. That is one of the reasons I regard that whole “fact check” of the Climategate emails as ridiculous.

It’s funny you brought up the other people involved in the fact check. Before I did my last comment on your post, I googled the scientists mentioned in the story and they were all AGW supporters. I’m not sure how that makes them “moderates” as they were called in the story. What is a climate change “moderate?”

I’m thinking the MSM should retire the moniker “fact check” since that clearly was not done in this case. What “fact” was actually checked? The one fact I wanted checked, the reliability of the models based on the “Harry read me text,” was never mentioned. I don’t care that one scientist called another one an ass, or that one guy was happy that a skeptic died. These “experts” didn’t address the most important thing in the release. They did address a lot of things that I don’t think anyone was really asking about though.

You seem to think I am not addressing questions that you feel are vitally important, so let me know if I’ve missed any:

“why won’t you answer what exactly this whole thing is then,what word would you give it?”

-this thing? See, this is why I don’t answer all your questions.

“how about this, was there an effort by multiple people for the purpose of hiding,changing, or limiting data/truth from others?”

-

-hiding data yes. At least the raw data. The CRU collected raw temp station data for years all over the world. Now they claim they only have the adjusted data. What ever reason they no longer have the original raw data, how can their work be reproduced? You can only work off the adjusted data.

-changing data yes. The difference in the raw station data that has been available and investigated, in Russia, Australia, and New Zealand, show that the adjusted data used by the CRU changes a raw data trend of lowering temps to one that shows rising ones. There may be a good reason to adjust the data, but if there is, shouldn’t the CRU say what that is? Science has to be reproducible. If other researchers are not getting the same results that the CRU is, shouldn’t there be an explanation?

Limiting data- yes. Even your fact checkers don’t deny that. They were fighting FOI requests to release their data.

Now to you this spells conspiracy. That’s why you are trying to nail me with the conspiracy theory moniker, but to me the difference is that they believe it. I don’t think they know it’s a lie and are trying to push a lie off as truth. I think they believe it, and that’s why the adjusted data points in a different direction than the raw data.

Let me give you an example from the “fact check.” Mike’s “nature trick.” Michael Mann, author of the discredited hockey stick, was using tree ring data to show increased temperatures. However after 1960 the tree ring data didn’t show rising temperatures. So Mann added adjusted temperature station data after 1960. This may not be fraud, but I can’t see how it’s not bad science. For one data set, you use one type of data, and then when the data is no longer showing you what you expect to see, you switch to a totally different type of data. If tree ring data is not accurate after 1960, why would you think it’s accurate before 1960? There should be two separate data sets, from the two different sources, not one, and since one doesn’t match the other, shouldn’t that be investigated? And of course the temp station data is the “adjusted” data.

I think really bad science is a much better description of what happened than conspiracy. So far we have:

Adjusted data which swings in a totally different direction than the raw data.

Data from different sources combined into single data sets.

NASA temp data being “adjusted” from showing the 90’s as the hottest decade in a century to the 1930’s.

If people really believe something, I think they can adjust out of their data what they want to see. That’s not conspiracy though, that’s religion.

don’t you know that already.. hell it’s as plain as day because the AP let their science reporter fact check science documents..and the scientist hid and fudged their data to make Al Gore rich..

*rollseyes*

how about this, was there an effort by multiple people for the purpose of hiding,changing, or limiting data/truth from others?

if the answer to that is yes, then great.. it’s a conspiracy..

if the answer is no, great.. then tell me what it is..

I see where it could be a conflict if the AP guy was the only one doing the ‘fact checking’ and he had some faulty reports before..but, as I would trust Christiane Amanpour to give a proper investigative report into a scandal involving CNN journalists in Afghanistan, I trust this person also..not just because it’s the fucking AP, which is a big deal whether you believe them or not, seeing as they are 1/2 of the world wide news, Reuters being the other 1/2(which I suppose doctors their news too.. gee fucking willy, amazing that I, the one who you claim sees conspiracy everywhere, doesn’t see them in the 2 most trusted names in news, but you do..) but also because there are 4 other reporters plus 7 experts.. you have not shown their biased, or why they have reason to make this whole report up so how in the hell do you expect me throw out their findings? you can fucking ignore them like they don’t count..and then condemn me b/c I won’t? Nu-uh…

How can you just skip right over them and ignoring them altogether… granted you do that on purpose because you don’t have an answer for them so it’s just better to not bring them up in your argument… and I flat out loath when you do that and quite frankly, find it cowardly.. I always answer your questions, you’ve begrudgingly admitted as much quite a few times on muche…. but you? just pretend like you never heard me each time I’ve asked the same question over and over..

you’re doing it with the other reporters/experts and what would you call this whole thing if not a conspiracy..

instead you repeat…‘it’s a question of ethics for the AP science reporter to fact check scientific data’ and ‘Your worldview is seeing conspiracies, not mine‘ ad nauseum instead of answering that which was really asked of you..

well.. so be it! stay in your ‘robo-mike’ mode…I’m tired of asking..

“Curiously absent from this conversation about climate change is the profound effect of man’s raping of the forests of the world and it’s direct impact on C02.”

I really don’t see why you insist on mischaracterizing me as conspiracy nut on this issue. We both know the charge falls flat. I assume it goes to your worldview, that we could not be where we are on AGW (virtually all governments and MSM supporting it) unless it was either true or there was a diabolical conspiracy involved. Again, I at this point, after everything I’ve written on it, I doubt I can explain it to you. Seeing beyond your own worldview is damnably difficult.

Anyway, you know at this point I don’t want to talk you out of your belief in AGW. At this point, I want everyone who believes to continue to believe. So don’t stop believing wooah ohh…

The AP let a reporter who was part of the story fact check it. How can that not be a breach of journalistic ethics? I’m just a blogger and I know better than that. Seriously, that’s OK by you?

so I checked to see just how he was ‘part of the story’.. and he was ‘part of the story’ because as the AP science guy, he had emailed questions to 3 scientists.. and that’s where the shit hit the fan..wattsupwiththat blog was just so damn mad because he was just so familiar that he couldn’t possibly be an ethical journalist.. and the fact that he’s been the AP science guy who of course believes in GW made him also a truly biased choice..

*rollseyes*

and your Hannity example.. umm no, try it would be like having Lynn Swan report on the days events at OJ’s trial.. Or Jose Canseco call a baseball game.. as long theykept to the facts, I don’t see why they couldn’t get the story out there correctly..

same with the AP guy

and you are still ignoring the 4 other reporters and 7 experts.. so cmon, what is the excuse for them?

Mike, you believe there are forces out there getting together to hide real truth from you and the rest of the world on this issue.. you believe that people like the AP are using biased journalism when they tell you ‘there’s really nothing to see here’, you started this whole affair off by spreading the misunderstanding that none of the big MSM liberal networks were reporting it and in fact ignoring and thus hiding the story..

not to mention the underlying belief that the world has been ‘hoaxed’.. you don’t call it a conspiracy only because of your distaste of being labeled a conspiracy theorists.. but what else is it? you are claiming people got together in an effort to make people believe something that was not true..

seriously… the definitions of conspiracy

1-the act of conspiring.. Yep you think we’ve got that in the liberal MSM in not reporting the story, the AP in covering up the story and the science community hiding the facts

2- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. … once again, same thing

3- a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.. again, same thing

4- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. and same thing

this is not just because you think I view the world as a conspiracy.. I resisted calling it a conspiracy also and called it a hoax.. but after the AP thing, it’s not longer a hoax b/c now you are saying there is an effort not only with the scientists, not only with the politicians and whole governments, not only with the liberal press, but now even the world renowned AP are in a concentrated effort to deceive..or hide.. or plot against..or yes, conspire!

but just to see the word-play you will use.. what exactly do you call it? a hoax that a few funny men played on everyone?

And of course you didn’t address the issue his “fact checking” forgot: the climate model data. If that’s not right, then AGW is not right. It’s as simple as that. That was one of my main points in both my blog and in my previous reply to your blog, and in the emails, which Borenstein didn’t of course address. His and your spin on this is “OK, some of these scientists may have been a little rude, but hey the science is sound.” I don’t care about their personal snits, the problem is their science isn’t sound. And they don’t want anyone double checking their work. That’s some fact checking we could benefit from.

Even though I have gone out of my way to emphasize that it’s not a conspiracy, you continue to paint me as a conspiracy nut because… that’s how you view the world. If you were on my side of the issue, you would see a conspiracy everywhere with this, based on your previous history. That’s just your worldview. But don’t impinge my views with your prejudices.