Climategate: Associated Press, busted!

Originally posted by FMF
mrstabby has also pointed out time and time again how zeeblebot cut and pastes so much that he frequently isn't aware of what's in his cut and pastes nor does he always seem to understand what the content means.

if i remember mr stabby's argument right, i did cut-and-paste something that supported the idea of global warming. i went back and looked, after his post, and noted that my point in posting it was to note that global warming has occurred in the distant past WITHOUT the presence of industry.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
no, you said "The reason you don't quote from credible scientists and credible institutions ..."

and then i pointed to this thread, where i had recently quoted three credible scientists...

...who are telling you, and the likes of you, to calm down and stop running around like headless chickens. Who cares what layer upon layer upon tangent from a tangent of whatever it is that you are spam bombing us with?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
if i remember mr stabby's argument right, i did cut-and-paste something that supported the idea of global warming. i went back and looked, after his post, and noted that my point in posting it was to note that global warming has occurred in the distant past WITHOUT the presence of industry.

mrstabby will be along soon to back you and all your cuts & pastes up, no doubt.

Originally posted by FMF
...who are telling you, and the likes of you, to calm down and stop running around like headless chickens. Who cares what layer upon layer upon tangent from a tangent of whatever it is that you are spam bombing us with?

see, what you SHOULD'VE said was, "well, i guess i exaggerated, i guess you do quote from credible sources".

Originally posted by zeeblebot
see, what you SHOULD'VE said was, "well, i guess i exaggerated, i guess you do quote from credible sources".

You deliberately took the credible sources out of context - even worse that AP did. You have not a shred of credibility, zeeblebot.

really? how so?

Originally posted by FMF
You deliberately took the credible sources out of context - even worse that AP did. You have not a shred of credibility, zeeblebot.

And you FMF do have a shred of credibility?! LOL 🙂
Lets discuss your latest trip Cuba.....

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Lets discuss your latest trip Cuba.....

What about Cuba?

Originally posted by FMF
What about Cuba?

can you describe the airport please? 🙂

Originally posted by utherpendragon
can you describe the airport..?

Yes, I can.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, I can.

I am just messing around fmf, happy new year to you too! 🙂

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/science-of-global-warming-not-faked-inquiry-decides-1839292.html

Science of global warming not faked, inquiry decides

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, AP

Sunday, 13 December 2009

Emails stolen from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia show they stonewalled sceptics and discussed hiding data. But the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, an exhaustive review by the Associated Press has found.

The 1,073 emails examined show that scientists harboured private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. But the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing that the world is warming as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message.

...

(comment)

Does the AP expect us to be impressed?
fredtaylor wrote:

Sunday, 13 December 2009 at 02:05 am (UTC)

Does anyone actually put any stock in this AP "announcement."
Are these guys kidding me? The AP makes this ridiculous statement, and we are all supposed to figure the issue is settled?

These guys are a bunch of journalists, for goodness sake. Seth Borenstein, for one, has been a hysterical eco-maniacial pro-AGW writer for years and years.

The University of Anglia investigation is supposed to take months and months. The Penn State investigation is also going to take months and months. And... these are SCIENTISTS who are going to be taking so long to investigate the emails.

Yet... when the Associated Press, a bunch of newspapermen, take a few days and decide that everything is hunky-dorey - investigation closed - we are supposed to be impressed.

How are we supposed to figure these journalists came to their decision? Did they take a poll of other journalists? Did they poll themselves? My goodness.

😵

"however slight and fleeting"

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/science-of-global-warming-not-faked-inquiry-decides-1839292.html

Science of global warming not faked, inquiry decides

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, AP

Sunday, 13 December 2009

Emails stolen from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia show they stonewal ...[text shortened]... ision? Did they take a poll of other journalists? Did they poll themselves? My goodness.[/b]

Hang on a sec. Who is "fredtaylor" exactly? What peer-reviwed papers has he had published?

Originally posted by FMF
Hang on a sec. Who is "fredtaylor" exactly? What peer-reviwed papers has he had published?

(zeeblebot presses <FN1> )

he's got at least as much creditability as an anonymous poster named "FMF"!