On 1/1/2012 7:04 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> It is now a documented fact that much of the research purported to
> support AGW was falsified and/or misrepresented, and claiming that this
> puts me into the moon-landing denier camp is mere ad hominem.
>
No it wasn't. There where multiple data sources, including "actual 
measurements". One bloody set of data, specific to a species of tree 
whose rings where used, as one data point, to verify the trend, showed 
an odd skew in the data, which contradicted the trend. The supposedly 
"falsified" data was a chart that excluded the trees, for a very small 
period of time, as used other data sources *instead*, to fill in the gap 
that resulted. The exact reason for the disparity isn't certain, but a) 
its a damn life form, and b) there where increases in drought conditions 
in the region they where in, which might have had an impact on the data 
produced. All other sources of data, including *live* recordings of 
actual temperatures, all showed the expected trend. A few living 
organisms, which belonged to one species, and might thus have been prey 
to anything from bugs, to water contamination, to not enough water, to.. 
who knows, was the sole cause of the complaints about "falsified data".

But, this makes no damn sense at all. If, to give an example, you are 
baking cookies, but they burn, and the oven says its 350, but a) other 
things burn too, b) your cooking thermometer says its 450, c) other 
means of testing the temperature says its too high as well, etc., do you 
insist that the oven is right, or do you ignore the oven, and make down 
on your recipe, "Set at 250, to compensate for the error."? That's 
bloody making sure your data is right, not "faking it". now, if 
everything, including the cookies, said its was 350, but your 
thermometer said something else, but you sided with it, that would be a 
completely different matter, but that was the exact opposite of what 
happened with the tree ring data.

As for other claims of misrepresentation, etc... Those mostly came out 
of denialist intentional misinterpretation of emails. Emails that 
involved internal discussion as to which data was valid, why some of it 
might be a bit quirky, and how trustworthy it was, what means should be 
used to correct for these minor errors, in order to present the most 
accurate assessment possible, and a fair number of emails about how 
pissed off they where at people that liked to only point out things 
that, for one reason or other, didn't show the expected results, in 
order to undermine their research. Most of the reason for the small 
problems where averaged out, not excluded, by tracking *multiple* data 
sources, which produce an inexact, but never the less clear, pattern, 
for those periods where we have no direct measurements.

But, for more recent measurements, the data includes satellite records, 
better measurements, more accurate analysis of other data types, etc., 
and they all show, even without ignoring clear evidence, like melting 
ice caps, communities vanishing to permafrost melting, rising tide 
levels, in places like Texas, where the anti-AGW people actually 
released the paper that was written there only *after* editing out all 
mention of the tide levels, and all the charts showing it had increased, 
and other things that supported the idea that sea levels where rising. 
Every single scientist that had their name on the thing immediately 
protested, and asked to be removed as an author.

There has been no legitimate case made for any data being falsified, or 
misinterpreted, save by those people that either don't want it to be 
true, or the companies that would need to change practices, and the 
think tanks, which those same companies *pay* to say that the evidence 
doesn't support AGW (as well as paying to claim all sort of other things 
that are fishy, invalid, and/or strangely convenient for their benefactors).

Post a reply to this message