Big Journalism skewers the media's coverage of the CRU emails and what they mean, part of their neverending promotion of the now highly questionable climate change fandango.
Here's a sample, comparing what AP SAYS Dr. Frankel said, with what he actually says about the emails:
The five AP reporters interviewed three scientists about the emails, and concluded: "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations,'" as the AP quoted Dr. Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AP had provided him a copy of the emails, without any other important documents.
But we spoke with Dr. Frankel about his interview with the AP, and it appears that AP portrayed him as not too concerned about Climategate. Asked whether it was possible for him to conclude from the emails whether there was "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data" based on the emails, Dr. Frankel replied:
No, you can't do that on the emails alone, you can't do it on the emails or the program. You know, you owe it to people to interview and get their responses, and you owe it to people to ask people within the discipline, other scientists within that discipline, you know what are the expected practices, forms, etcetera in your field. And that takes a little bit of time, I mean that's why these investigations often take a long time and that you involve experts who know that scientific field.
When pushed further, "Just trying to clarify that you couldn't make an answer as to whether there was evidence of falsification or fabrication of data," Dr. Frankel said: No, I couldn't make it on the basis of what I've seen, and I consider myself to pretty much be an expert in areas of research misconduct.
You really make a mistake if you just read the news with your morning coffee and fail to engage in a more critical reading--a forensic reading , if you will--of the "news".