ABC, NBC, CBS ignore Climategate

[DarrinS]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2009/12/02/12-days-climategate-network-news-programs-are-still-ignoring-scandal




It's been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people's faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university's Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent - not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

MRC's President Brent Bozell called the networks' silence a "cover-up" Dec. 2.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC's Sunday talk show: "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

The ClimateGate scandal, as it is being called, has the hallmarks of a major news story: private emails purporting to show unethical or illegal behavior supplied by a hacker or whistleblower, high profile scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann, and a potential conspiracy to distort science for political gain. But the networks haven't bothered with the story.

Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and BMI adviser, said Nov. 20 of the leaked e-mails and documents: "This isn't a smoking gun, it's a mushroom cloud."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a question about ClimateGate by insisting that "global warming is happening" and that for most people it isn't really a question anymore. That is the same message viewers get from the network news about climate change.

An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods' "minor" car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president's State Dinner.

ClimateGate began after someone (hacker or whistleblower) attacked servers of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and made thousands of e-mails and documents public. Those e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles.

CRU's director Phil Jones admitted real CRU e-mails had been stolen when he told New Zealand's Investigate magazine, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails." Others argue a whistleblower was responsible for the breach.

One of those alleged e-mails was from Jones to Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others appeared to indicate manipulation of scientific data.

Jones wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [Sic] from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones, who contributed to a chapter of the U.N.'s IPCC report, claims the term "trick" was used "colloquially as in a clever thing to do." Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), supplied his own view of what Jones and Mann meant by hiding the decline.

Ebell wrote in the National Post: "What is the clever method that Prof. Jones learned from Prof. Mann? I think he is referring to the way Prof. Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past 1,000 years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades ... So what Prof. Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila! - the hockey stick."

The alleged e-mails were enough to force Jones' temporary resignation. On Dec. 1, Associated Press reported that Jones is "stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change."

Other leaked e-mails asked people to delete e-mails and one said that if information was requested using FOI, it would be deleted rather than turned over:

Alleged e-mail from Jones to Mann Feb. 2, 2005:

"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
In Britain, it is a crime to delete information requested under FOI.

[clambake]

"this is an outrage! it's snowing in dallas!"

[DarrinS]

"this is an outrage! it's snowing in dallas!"

You have no problem with scientific fraud. I understand.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2009/12/02/12-days-climategate-network-news-programs-are-still-ignoring-scandal

I want to start by stating I don't care either way whether man causes global warming because at this point we do not have the technology to decide one way or the other. My problem liews in the fact the right wing continually uses comments out of context to try and demonize the left. Now I understand the left demonizes the right however the conservatives have the trophy when it comes to being intellectually dishonest.


If your argument is based on one statement someone made in the context of a larger piece of work, is that dishonest? Is taking the statement out of context an honest argument?

[clambake]

You have no problem with scientific fraud. I understand.

everything is gods will.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You have no problem with scientific fraud. I understand.

why don't you acknowledge that most these statements were taken out of context?

[DarrinS]

It's sad that Jon Stewart has more journalistic integrity than ABC, CBS, NBC

FgPUpIBWGp8

[DarrinS]

why don't you acknowledge that most these statements were taken out of context?


I know you're not really this dumb.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I know you're not really this dumb.

I fortunately know how intellectually dishonest you are so that's why I asked.

[DarrinS]

why don't you acknowledge that most these statements were taken out of context?


Can you put these statements in context for me?




"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."







"We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can you put these statements in context for me?


Email where statetment came from


"We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."




CLAIM: Trenberth's "travesty" email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring

Email:

From: Kevin Trenberth <[email protected]>
To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <[email protected]>, Myles Allen <[email protected]>, peter stott <[email protected]>, "Philip D. Jones" <[email protected]>, Benjamin Santer <[email protected]>, Tom Wigley <[email protected]>, Thomas R Karl <[email protected]>, Gavin Schmidt <[email protected]>, James Hansen <[email protected]>, Michael Oppenheimer <[email protected]>

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in
Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We
had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained
from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a
monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with
the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since
Sept 2007. see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c
urrent.ppt
Kevin


REALITY: Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming" and wrote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate" [emphasis added].

Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired's Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth "says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article -- An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) -- actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise." RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post that "[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening."

[Wild Cobra]

"this is an outrage! it's snowing in dallas!"
Thank God for Global Warming, or you guys be freezing your asses off!

[clambake]

Thank God for Global Warming, or you guys be freezing your asses off!

i don't live in dallas.

[DMX7]

Written by conservatives for conservatives... In fact, I think the polar ice caps are actually growing. Did you know they found WMD's in Iraq too? But the liberal media elites will have you believe otherwise.

[greyforest]

there's billions of dollars of industry behind both agendas. both sides throw money at spinning the story both ways, and we end up not knowing what the fuck is going on.

the american way!

[mogrovejo]

there's billions of dollars of industry behind both agendas. both sides throw money at spinning the story both ways, and we end up not knowing what the fuck is going on.

the american way!

Proof?

---------

I don't think this matters. The biggest problem was that the field was corrupted by groupthinking, a corrupt peer-review process and scientists who become activists - they transformed their topic of research into a cause.

Politicians love the idea of Global Warming Alarmism - it's the kind of stuff that suggests the need for coercive collectivist action, thereby justifying their existence and salaries (the more to the socialist/statist side they are, the more they like it) - so the issue will stay in agenda for awhile. But now there are more conditions to have a regular, rational, more depoliticized scientific process.

Phil Jones has already stepped down from his position at the CRU. They have been forced to admit they don't have the raw data (when this was suggested they used to call it "insulting"). Science journals will be more cautious about inviting guys like these to review papers. It's not going to be the MSM and hardcore partisans to take the taint out of their reputations.

[TeyshaBlue]

why don't you acknowledge that most these statements were taken out of context?

Most? How many? You've read them all and analyzed them? Which ones were taken out of context? Be specific.

/ChumpDumper



:rollin:rollin

[Nbadan]

Written by conservatives for conservatives... In fact, I think the polar ice caps are actually growing. Did you know they found WMD's in Iraq too? But the liberal media elites will have you believe otherwise.

WTF? :bang

[Nbadan]

There's little debate that the earth is warming, and if it warms too much, it could eliminate man...so the alternatives are try and do something...and maybe waste tons of worthless money or not do anything and be tragically wrong for our kids future...

[greyforest]

Proof?


use your head! bigass polluting companies in place don't want more restrictions on them since it will hurt their profits or even eliminate them altogether. they pump money to the gop and are currently winning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_agreement
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2009.png

other companies want the restrictions in place so they can fill the void left. they pump money to democrats and al gore movies.

both agendas are backed by shitloads of money and are at odds with each other. since worldviews held by people are malleable, both channel money to their respective media outlets which distort reality and that leaves us pretty much where we are - by and large without a clue what the fuck is happening.

[spursncowboys]

There's little debate that the earth is warming, and if it warms too much, it could eliminate man...so the alternatives are try and do something...and maybe waste tons of worthless money or not do anything and be tragically wrong for our kids future...

There is a huge debate that the earth is warming. YOu are assuming something to be true without facts.

[Nbadan]

There is a huge debate that the earth is warming. YOu are assuming something to be true without facts.

There is no debate. Get over it.

[Nbadan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

[Nbadan]

The real debate is how much effect man is having on this trend...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

[mogrovejo]

Too bad we now don't have the raw data to replicate that graph.

There are many debates though:

how much is the global temperature actually rising?

will it keep rising?

how much effect have men activities on global climate oscillations?

what kind of activities have that effect?

what's the magnitude of the problem?

is it indeed a problem? what's the cost/benefit of trying to solve it?

should global warming be a priority or there are other more serious environmental issues?

One of the problem with this discussions is that few people actually read the reports - they just rely on graphics, newspaper articles and blog posts. Even in the pro-alarmist IPPC reports, generated by the same guys now discredited, there's recognition that it's impossible to predict what's going to happen with any kind of certainty and that there's a good chance there's no problem at all. For some reason, only the "worse case scenario" gets traction in the media and in the political discussion.

[Nbadan]

how much is the global temperature actually rising?

...the power of e it seems...

[spursncowboys]

The real debate is how much effect man is having on this trend...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
:lol Did the first weather records come from stone writings?

[Nbadan]

...they are based on science...are you such an authority to dispute reasearched science?

[DarrinS]

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/NPC-NewVersion_files/image009.jpg

[Nbadan]

Potomac river then...

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/AB30516.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=A5C9C13351D9C3B700B52091209828E8769979DD952D68A4 702354BAC8D73777

Potomac today..

http://z.about.com/d/dc/1/5/Z/Potomac_River_View11.JPG


/thread

[mogrovejo]

...they are based on science...are you such an authority to dispute reasearched science?



APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
The single greatest failure of science is what philosophers call “appeal to
authority”, whereby the stature of a person allows statements made by that
person to be taken as absolute fact.

Nbadan is a genius.

[mogrovejo]

Potomac river then...

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/AB30516.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=A5C9C13351D9C3B700B52091209828E8769979DD952D68A4 702354BAC8D73777

Potomac today..

http://z.about.com/d/dc/1/5/Z/Potomac_River_View11.JPG


/thread

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

2. I don't think anybody questions that the climate changes. I think you should try to understand what's the issue upon discussion.

[DarrinS]

Someone put together a searchable database. Cool.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

[DarrinS]

Since Nbadan is a 911 twoofer, he has no business discussing anything about science.

/Nbadan

[Nbadan]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

2. I don't think anybody questions that the climate changes.

Isn't that what I said in my earlier posts on this topic? Selective read much?

[mogrovejo]

use your head! bigass polluting companies in place don't want more restrictions on them since it will hurt their profits or even eliminate them altogether. they pump money to the gop and are currently winning:

Once again, proof? Do you have any? AFAIK, bigass polluting companies like Exxon Mobil spend a lot more of money financing MMGWA than organizations that defend the sceptical position.

[mogrovejo]

Isn't that what I said in my earlier posts on this topic? Selective read much?

No. And if it was, it'd have been a tremendous contradiction and incoherency.

I think that we can all agree that your appeal to authority was extremely misplaced in such a context.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

lol @ 120 year plot. Might as well be 10 minutes in climatalogical trends.

lol @ anecdotal dan and his hand drawn and subjectively rendered picture of the potomac vs photograph of same. As if this proved anything whatsoever.

lol @ maximum fail:sleep

[Wild Cobra]

There is no debate. Get over it.
We know the earth has warmed, That debate is indeed over. The debate drives on about what degree man's impact is and which is natural. On that topic, science is on the side that the sun is responsible for well over half the warming since the start of the 1700's. According to Lean 2004 (ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt), a NASA/GISS study, solar irradiance has increased by 0.24% from 1700 to 2000. Long term data is what you need to look at. Short term data has too many short term patterns that are hard to remove. This 0.24% when plugged into a greenhouse gas model has a direct radiative forcing increase of 0.16 watts per square meter. It has an indirect forcing of 1.08 watts, through increased power driving greenhouse gasses, for a total of 1.24 watts! Now they have no real way of measuring CO2's effect, so they model it by observation, leaving out critical data line the change in driving force. They estimate CO2 increases contributed to a 1.66 watt increase, however, if we remove the 1.08 watts, there is only 0.48 watts of forcing left. The facts really hurt you alarmists.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Wikigreenhousemodelmodifiedminus.jpg

[nuclearfm]

"wrong"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

[greyforest]

Once again, proof? Do you have any? AFAIK, bigass polluting companies like Exxon Mobil spend a lot more of money financing MMGWA than organizations that defend the sceptical position.

certainly! its glaringly obvious that republicans are anti-global warming and anti-environmental regulation. try and find a fox news segment in which bias isn't significantly skewed against global warming.

since lobbyists run the country and politicians are there generally to accept money from them, some entity with a shitload of money who is in bed with republicans wants to deny global warming to further their interests. who the fuck else could it be besides bigass polluting companies?

your anecdote is of little value - all it suggests is that exxon wants good PR with people who believe in global warming.

[mogrovejo]

certainly! its glaringly obvious that republicans are anti-global warming and anti-environmental regulation. try and find a fox news segment in which bias isn't significantly skewed against global warming.

since lobbyists run the country and politicians are there generally to accept money from them, some entity with a shitload of money who is in bed with republicans wants to deny global warming to further their interests. who the fuck else could it be besides bigass polluting companies?

your anecdote is of little value - all it suggests is that exxon wants good PR with people who believe in global warming.

So, do you have any proof or not? You made a very precise claim -
there's billions of dollars of industry behind both agendas - and we're still waiting for some kind of data to backup your claim. We know for a fact this is true for alarmists, that have been receiving millions of dollars from energy companies, so you just need to point us some evidences that show the same is happening with sceptics.

What do you call "anti global warming"? That's an expression that doesn't even make sense to me.

That's is the problem with this discussion. Way too politicized. People have transformed "global warming" into a political cause. It doesn't really matter if there's actually a man made global warming, how serious the effects are and what is the best plan of attack if one is indeed needed. For simplistic minds, there are bad guys who "want to deny global warming", even though nobody denies global warming. Fox's narrative is different than mine? Then they're biased! Insane.

[ElNono]

How is this whole thing different from Big Pharma producing fake scientific studies to get shit like Vioxx in the market past the FDA? Or Tobacco, paying through the nose and battling on every court for years to hide the fact that smoking and lung cancer are related?

There's nothing new here. Bad policy based on phony science happens a lot more than what people think. Those emails coming out just merely confirmed what most of us already know: This was a feud between two camps with direct interests in politics and economics, and very little interest in science itself.
Glad it come out? Sure. Shocking? Not at all.

[101A]

How is this whole thing different from Big Pharma producing fake scientific studies to get shit like Vioxx in the market past the FDA? Or Tobacco, paying through the nose and battling on every court for years to hide the fact that smoking and lung cancer are related?

There's nothing new here. Bad policy based on phony science happens a lot more than what people think. Those emails coming out just merely confirmed what most of us already know: This was a feud between two camps with direct interests in politics and economics, and very little interest in science itself.
Glad it come out? Sure. Shocking? Not at all.


Pow.

Right in the kisser.

[DarrinS]

Here are two questions I have for the AGW believers:


1. Once in the Earth's history, CO2 was 1000 times higher than today's levels and temperatures were warmer. Why didn't the Earth hit these so-called "tipping points" and have out-of-control warming?



2. If this all turns out that human activity isn't causing catastrophic warming and we don't enact policy that destroys our economy, isn't that the best news ever? Why do people want to believe in this so bad?

[DarrinS]

One thing is for sure: millions of my fellow scientists, engineers, and programmers will be going over the source code with a fine-toothed comb.

If this thing really gets blown up, it won't be by some consultant, financed by "big oil", it will be by those of us who seek the truth and dissect this stuff pro bono.

[greyforest]

What do you call "anti global warming"? That's an expression that doesn't even make sense to me.

That's is the problem with this discussion. Way too politicized. People have transformed "global warming" into a political cause. It doesn't really matter if there's actually a man made global warming, how serious the effects are and what is the best plan of attack if one is indeed needed. For simplistic minds, there are bad guys who "want to deny global warming", even though nobody denies global warming. Fox's narrative is different than mine? Then they're biased! Insane.

so fox news isn't biased, and they don't deny global warming. argument over!

[greyforest]

oh wait

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578947,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569235,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569218,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520896,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

if your article is titled "Americans No Longer Swallowing Global Warming Dogma", seems to me like there's some bias going on

[jack sommerset]

ABC,NBC,CBS can report whatever they want. For no particular reason, I have not watched any of their news shows in years and the ratings show noone else has either. There are tons of places to get your news from.

[George Gervin's Afro]

ABC,NBC,CBS can report whatever they want. For no particular reason, I have not watched any of their news shows in years and the ratings show noone else has either. There are tons of places to get your news from.

fox news, talk radio, glen beck,...plenty of places.

[Wild Cobra]

ABC,NBC,CBS can report whatever they want. For no particular reason, I have not watched any of their news shows in years and the ratings show noone else has either. There are tons of places to get your news from.


fox news, talk radio, glen beck,...plenty of places.

And people wonder why so many listen to Fox News.

Could it be because the other outlets do not touch topics people want to hear? Why else would Fox News be #1 in cable news channels. All you libtards can do is demean Fox whenever you get a chance. Call it biased and make fun of it all you want. It doesn't matter. They are #1 for a reason. Conservative talk radio is a success for a reason, when channels like Air America flop dramatically, could it be the integrity offered in content maybe?

[Winehole23]

Conservative talk radio is a success for a reason, when channels like Air America flop dramatically, could it be the integrity offered in content maybe?Nobody ever went broke overestimating the ignorance and stupidity of the American mainstream.

[DarrinS]

Rex Murphy of Canada's public television on Climategate:

True believers need to listen to this man's words. He's not some "big oil" shill.

Is anything he says unreasonable?


lgIEQqLokL8

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I want to start by stating I don't care either way whether man causes global warming because at this point we do not have the technology to decide one way or the other. My problem liews in the fact the right wing continually uses comments out of context to try and demonize the left. Now I understand the left demonizes the right however the conservatives have the trophy when it comes to being intellectually dishonest.


If your argument is based on one statement someone made in the context of a larger piece of work, is that dishonest? Is taking the statement out of context an honest argument?


Yep, you libs never use comments out of context to demonize the right.

Get off your ridiculously flawed and hypocritical high horse.