Reply With Quote
"this is an outrage! it's snowing in dallas!"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-s...noring-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 do ents: "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 do ents 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 Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute (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.
"this is an outrage! it's snowing in dallas!"
You have no problem with scientific fraud. I understand.
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?
everything is gods will.
why don't you acknowledge that most these statements were taken out of context?
It's sad that Jon Stewart has more journalistic integrity than ABC, CBS, NBC
I know you're not really this dumb.
I fortunately know how intellectually dishonest you are so that's why I asked.
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."
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."
pptCLAIM: 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.
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."
Thank God for Global Warming, or you guys be freezing your asses off!
i don't live in dallas.
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.
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 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.
Most? How many? You've read them all and analyzed them? Which ones were taken out of context? Be specific.
/ChumpDumper
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...
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
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 loads 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 is happening.
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.
The real debate is how much effect man is having on this trend...
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
