The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
Wow I am glad that journalists are as unbiased as these scientists were:
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
I thought that science was supposed to be skeptical and in search of the facts, not agenda driven or personal about those who disagree with you.
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
As expected warmers simply try to make stopping people with different views from publishing, telling others to destroy emails and other fraudulent activities seem like normal discord.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.
In other words, just trust us. We have received PHDs from buddies of ours who have the same preconceived notions about AGW and we have now been shown to be frauds, but just ignore the guy behind the curtain.
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
If you and your buddies careers were on the line along with millions in grant money, what would you expect him to say differently?
Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.
How scientific of him. Only provide the raw data to those who already are predisposed to your opinion.
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
And how do you know when a liar is telling the truth?
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.
Ah so the AP who provided the analysis has long been supporters of the warmers. I see.
I bet I could find some other journalists at Fox or the Daily Standard who could do an analysis and come to the exact opposite conclusions that these AP reporters have. Why not have used car salesmen do the analysis? It would be just about as useful.
