So, about those climate emails

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails

Whoops?

jmac3 wrote: Lol. And because I have a feeling Reb will comment saying I read this because it agreed with me, I didn't read it.

So you posted strictly to be a smart ass?


....Not bad. I'm glad there's been a thorough investigation, that's for sure. One single line in that article leads me to believe that if this IS a dead issue, its because its been prematurely killed.

"It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it."

I am still waiting for the conservative outcry over the AP using too many fact checkers.  

Eville wrote: I am still waiting for the conservative outcry over the AP using too many fact checkers.

Edited by brihard - 12 December 2009 at 5:46pm

agentwhale007 wrote: Rofl_Mao wrote: brihard wrote: Good start, but I'd like to see a more academic review, including replication of the implicated studies by other parties. That will never happen because they want to brush this whole thing off. Who is they?

FreeEnterprise wrote: "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."         complicit.

You're going to get slammed for that, I know it.

However, and I'm not just saying this because I don't like being 'proven' wrong, the whole article smacks of "Its all good because we say it is"

I say there's more room for investigation, although finding someone who can be fair enough to investigate and not let their own political bias/financial interests get in way might be tough to get a hold of.

My new opinion on the matter:

"So it wasn't as bad as it seemed, but I've still got the general feeling that something is missing."


Edited by Reb Cpl - 12 December 2009 at 6:55pm

Reb Cpl wrote: jmac3 wrote: Lol. And because I have a feeling Reb will comment saying I read this because it agreed with me, I didn't read it. So you posted strictly to be a smart ass? ....Not bad. I'm glad there's been a thorough investigation, that's for sure. One single line in that article leads me to believe that if this IS a dead issue, its because its been prematurely killed. "It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it."

No I posted because the headline made me laugh.

I just figured something like "Oh so you read things like this, but nothing else?" so I made that comment

THIS JUST IN; EVERY TIME A CONSERVATIVE SAYS SOMETHING STUPID, I WILL ATTRIBUTE IT TO FREEENTERPRISE

ParielIsBack wrote: I don't see how this has changed anything. The AP is not a scientific authority, they are a reporting one.

Weird...you're not Linus.

The underlying meaning: your suggestion that the press cannot accurately report on a scientific item because they are not a "scientific authority," implies that the press cannot report on anything, as they are not an authority in any field save their own.

Thank you for your time.

I'll admit that I didn't read any of this thread but think about this.. the internet use's a lot of electricity just to run.

Did you see the latest episode of Jersey Shore?