Feb
Associated Press spins more Climategate lies
Over at tree-hugging apologist mouthpiece, Media Matters they’re getting their panties in a bunch over a Fox News story. It seems Fox was biased for a “stale retread” over Climategate data rapist, Professor Phil Jones’ shocking admission that there’s been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years. How outrageous of Fox, I hear you scoff. But try and see it from Media Matters’ point of view–little green journos all now go into apoplectic spasm at every mention of unpleasant and unarguable climate facts.
So, thanks to the prompting by Media Manglers, I’ll now prove that the Associated Press (AP) is complicit in perpetrating further Climategate hype and lies. Thereby, our readers may judge for themselves how deeply the green-loving press has sunk themselves into the greatest scandal in science.
First, keep in mind that Fox News is the only American TV news broadcaster that has reported the Climategate story from Day One. Media Matters tries to spin the lie that the AP has been reporting on this epoch-changing event in a ‘just-the-facts fashion.’ But, as we shall see, in AP’s case ‘just the facts’ means doling out hype and lies supportive of the global warming hysteria.
Astonishingly, it is the leaked Climategate emails themselves that expose the complicitness of the Associated Press in the Climategate scandal. Keen eyes at that excellent skeptic blog, Watts Up With That (WUWT), first uncovered the facts exposing media conspiracy in reporting Climategate. Blogger, Anthony Watts, found that AP had a ‘man on the inside’ of information from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit three months before the leaked emails surfaced.
It is those leaked emails that expose AP reporter, Seth Borenstein as a Climategate collaborator. So it came as no surprise to bloggers when AP ran the following in a ‘just-the-facts fashion’ on December 12, 2009 after the Climategate story broke:
“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.” source
And whom did AP put in charge of their “exhaustive review”? Yes, you guessed it, Seth Borenstein.
Borenstein has long been known among climate commentators as an avid green sympathiser. As a sample of Borenstein’s affiliations look no further than the leaked email dated Jul 23, 2009 when Seth ‘just-the-facts’ Borenstein emailed his Climategate chums, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt and Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann, three months before Climategate:
“It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein, Associated Press Science Writer
sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx”
Michael Mann’s reply:
“hi Seth, you always seem to catch me at airports. only got a
few minutes. took a cursory look at the paper, and it has all
the worry signs of extremely bad science and scholarship.”
Thus speaketh Michael ‘bad science’ Mann always available for a buddy like Seth. Whatchya think of that? To quantify how far AP journalism has fallen off it’s integrity perch just take a look here at their own code of conduct
Laughably, AP claims that:
“we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.”
So if readers are troubled by AP’s “exhaustive review” you can phone or write and ask in a just-the-facts fashion at the following address:
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
Tel: 202-641-9454
Possibly related posts:
AP apply the same values and application of their Code of Conduct as the BBC attaches to its Royal Charter.
In theory they are whiter-than-white; in practice they are no better than Snake-oil Salesmen.
USA Today reprint of Borenstein’s AP article: $1.00
Stimulus Funds for Michael Mann’s “Science”: $2.5 M
Michael Mann commenting on the “science and scholarship” of another climatologist: Priceless
Just spent the morning reading Peabody Energy’s petition to the EPA on the CO2 endangerment finding. Fantastic summation of our case and the bankruptcy of the entire climate mafia. This is the legal throw-down from the USA business community to the Obama Administration: back-off or else we go to court and exposure. If the Administration can’t make a deal with Republican wets in the Senate it will have to fight. It may have to anyway. F the AP and our other disgusting media shills. They are a dying enterprise preaching to an ever shrinking choir in an ever shriller screech. F them. Go Peabody go!
John S.,
I wonder if I can sue my Congressman Bart Gordon for defrauding me? I’ll bet I can prove he enriched himself and his family at my expense. I’m sure something like this would be difficult but maybe…
Data rapist? That’s pretty graphic.
I don’t think Jones raped the data. He ripped it’s blouse, exposing it’s bousom, and fondled it while forcing his tongue down it’s throat. Soiling it’s skin with his sickly vomitous stench forcing it to run home weeping and then take a shower to scrub the stink off.
But that’s not… you know what? That is rape.
Forget I said anything.
Phil Jones, Mike Mann, and James Hansen, impregnated the data with a false warming signal.
You see? Less graphic. Less likely to offend delicate sensitivities then the use of the rape imagery. More accurate.
If that’s true why have others been able to independently reproduce their results? Coincidence?
Because they either a) cheated or b) used the same data that was already tainted.
Many of these entities appear to invested vast sums in expectation of huge annual returns and now the whole thing has collapsed and they cannot even get a small part of their investment back.So they try so hard to sell the “Climate change bad for us” garbage.
In fact their lies about climate change has brought about “political climate change for the better–for the betterment of all of us who used to be taken in so easily BUT NO MORE.
On Dec 16 of 2009 I sent the following letter (that meets their limitations) to the SLO Tribune regarding the ‘editorial’ by Borenstein et al that they provided prominent space for. It was NOT published, nor have any of my letters to the editor pointing out technical inaccuracies in their stories. Is there any recourse when the ‘NEWS’ is so biased?
==============
The Tribune’s ‘climategate’ coverage was expanded in the Dec 13 article – your third AP climategate article. The lead author, science reporter Borenstein, is featured in several climategate emails. On a first name basis with several of the scientists, he took part in a series of emails with climategate scientists conspiring to debunk a (peer reviewed) paper purporting to document minor human influence in warming. This strains my definition of ‘reporting.’
The AP ‘Impact Analysis’ addresses emails only – not the software also released. Software comments include statements that CRU temperature databases were in a dubious state – that data integrity was poor – “allow bad databases to pass unnoticed” – and that many adjustments were arbitrary.
The enormous US financial impact proposed to offset the possible human contribution to global warming should be based on science that is open to debate and reliable verification. Climategate revealed that debate has been stifled, data has been hidden to avoid audit, and – while the science may not be faked, the results clearly have been. Your readers – so far – must go to other news sources to find out these facts.
If global warming science is settled, why cheat?
[...] 8 comments [...]
There’s nothing shocking about there being “no statistically significant warming” over 15 years. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that if you make the time interval small enough and trend will lose its statistical significance. It is still much more likely that the underlying trend over the past 15 years is upwards, not downward.
The trend for the past 30 years is way within the 99% confidence interval for being a positive trend.
So Dominic, on that admission, you’ll agree with us skeptics then that ‘catastrophic’ global warming is a dead duck theory?
In fact the trend over the last 15 years is up, by over .25 degrees C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
There’s a difference between skepticism and denial.
And no – I do not agree with your statement. I’m not sure why you’d think I would. Likely because you didn’t understand my comment at all.
Dominic, I do understand. You fail to show statistically significant warming to prove your AGW theory. I think that’s self-evident from the facts. Your ilk seeks to assert that the small blip of warming that occurred between 1975-1998 proves ‘catastrophic’ global warming. But this is nonsense. The rate and time span of such warming is no different than that which occurred from 1860-80 and 1910-40 that lies within an even longer-term trend of warming over the last 300 years since the LIA. Moreover, the raw temp sets from the two oldest, most reliable thermometer records – the CET (351 years) and Klementinum (Prague) – together indicate warming of only 0.25 degrees per century. This rate is neither ‘catastrophic,’ attributable to human emissions nor unusual for an inter-glacial period. Thus we may reasonably conclude that it is you who is the ‘denier.’
“Dominic, I do understand. You fail to show statistically significant warming to prove your AGW theory.”
No really, I don’t think you do. If you plot the annual global average temperatures for the past 30 years, compute the best fit slope and its uncertainty, you will find the trend to be positive to a certainty of better than 99%.
Of course – if you cut that 30 years up into smaller time segments, you’re more and more likely to not have a statistically significant trend.
That’s statistics for you. If you like, though, and I’m sure you will, you can continue to be intellectually dishonest and pretend like the 15 year period that best suits you is the only one that matters.
“Moreover, the raw temp sets from the two oldest, most reliable thermometer records – the CET (351 years) and Klementinum (Prague) – together indicate warming of only 0.25 degrees per century.”
That could be because AGW didn’t start 351 years ago. But again, I wouldn’t want to let facts get in the way.
Dominic….you are a poster boy for abortion.
Dominic are you Steve ‘Mad’ Mennie in disguise? I have made the point that there is a 300-year warming trend in which you try to cite a 25-year unexceptional late 20th century warming blip, no different in any statistically significant way, from the warming blips of 1860-80 and 1910-40.
Yet you irrationally expect the world to buy into the nonsense that the blip from 1975-98 is somehow indicative of a human warming signal that will prove ‘catastrophic!’ Sadly for you, you’re make yourself look not only ‘statistically dishonest’ but an utter fool.
I might be wrong…but doe’s “Dominic” mean “Al Gore” in Greek?
[...] AP’s shill is as bad, but he’s still spinning the facts, not yet ready to admit defeat. Give him a few more [...]