Reply With Quote
Yes! More out of context emails! The science is so easily proven wrong that we're going to just go ahead and resort to out of context emails instead.
Yes! More out of context emails! The science is so easily proven wrong that we're going to just go ahead and resort to out of context emails instead.
Why would the carbon-energy and other industries continue to pay "scientists" and stink tanks to foment against and deny (anthropomorphic) global warming?
I'll reserve judgement until I read more. Manny and boutons have already made up their minds.
Isnt transparency a good thing?
I definitely made up my mind on reading out of context emails a long time ago.You act as if this is somehow a bad thing.
Transparency is a great thing. Taking bits and pieces instead of the entire history isn't a good thing. Let me know when you read all the emails and not the ones the blogs tell you to read.
Furthermore, I couldn't care two s about the emails between scientists when I can simply review their work instead. If the work is bad, its bad. If its good, its good. I don't need to know what the Mann emailed on Thursday to know if that is the case.
I can see the appeal to those who just want to be told what to believe though. For them out of context emails are great fodder.
No, you're not, and the only time you have an open mind is when you are shamed by your stupidity and forced to give up on a position. An example of this is from going, "there is no warming look at the glacier thats where its all hiding' to 'who gives a its only polar bears.'
Then there is the fact that you lie and misrepresent as a matter of course. You have no integrity whatsoever you sophist piece of .
Cherry-picked context thread 2.0
You have to remember. They worship the God of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You know how people can be about their faith.
Cliff notes on the 5000 emails, anyone?
Wait, were you one of the guys up in arms when Wikileaks released their leaked docs?
Are temperature readings a matter of national security?
Neither was video of a reporter and his driver getting turned into swiss cheese by an Apache.
Reporters often put themselves in harms way for the story. His death was because of his own carelessness. He should have never pointed, what looked like a rocket launcher from a distance, at a military helicopter.
Did his camera shots survive him?
LOL the Iraq cluster having anything to do with national security.
So transparency isn't always good?
The Real Climategate Scandals Are Piling Up
An ambulance pulls up behind you. You know it’s an ambulance because you can read AMBULANCE in your rear view mirror. But you can also read it when you look at the vehicle directly; because the human visual system has the ability to quickly correct complete inversions or left-right reversals of letters. In fact, a complete inversion is easier to read than letters that are rotated only partially.
This human ability to process complete inversions more quickly than just partial distortions, alas, lends itself to exploitation by ruthless propagandists who seek to create a chimerical world in which up is down, left is right, and good is smeared as evil.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the netherworld of attacks on climate scientists.
Remember “climategate”? The illegal hack of personal emails released just before the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 that some columnists pronounced to be the (approximately 132nd) “final nail in the coffin” of global warming?
Remember the “errors” in the IPCC’s 2007 report? “Amazongate”, “Himalayagate”, and so on?
What has happened to “climategate”?
What’s happened is this.
First, the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee exonerated the scientist at the centre of the tempest, Professor Phil Jones, finding he has “no case to answer” and that his reputation “remains intact.”
Then Lord Oxburgh (former chairman of S -UK) and his panel likewise exonerated the researchers, finding their “work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation” are “not valid.”
Another enquiry, chaired by Sir Muir Russell, found the scientists’ “rigour and honesty” to be beyond doubt.
Two enquiries by his university also cleared Professor Michael Mann – who presented the first of now innumerable “hockey stick” graphs – of all allegations.
Ultimately the (conservative) UK Government concluded “the information contained in the illegally-disclosed emails does not provide any evidence to discredit … anthropogenic climate change.”
Not one, not two, but by now nine vindications.
This comes as no surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the distinction between private chat and public actions.
And what has happened to the IPCC “Whatevergates”?
What’s happened is this.
First, the Sunday Times apologised and retracted its “Amazongate” story. There is no “Amazongate”; there is only the Amazon rainforest threatened by climate change.
Then the Dutch government accepted responsibility for erroneously informing the IPCC that 55% of the Netherlands are below sea level. In fact only 26% are at risk of flooding because they are below sea level, whereas the other 29% are, err, at risk of flooding from rivers.
And about a year after “climategate” broke, the BBC finally apologised to the University of East Anglia for its misleading coverage of the “climategate” pseudo-scandal.
All that’s left of the “Whatevergates”, therefore, is red-faced apologies and one indubitable IPCC error: the incorrect projection of the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers to 2035, as opposed to the more likely 2350. This error was drawn to the public’s attention by, wait for it, an IPCC author.
Can we now forget about “gate” in connection with “climate”?
No.
Because there are too many real climategates that must not escape attention.
First, there was another batch of private emails posted by the Compe ive Enterprise Ins ute, a “think” tank notorious even by American standards. Those emails — yes, a second hack — revealed the real climategate by being truthful, with one scientist stating: “Those who deny the biophysical facts of the world would deny … gravity” and “we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against … merciless enemies. Colleagues … are getting threatened with prosecution by … [US Senator James M.] Inhofe.”
That is the second real climategate: the McCarthyite attempts by Senator Inhofe to criminalise climate scientists — attempts to criminalise those who, 35 years ago, predicted the temperature rise by century’s end to within 1/10th of a degree.
This is no isolated incident: Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, has launched several frivolous lawsuits — despite losing an earlier one — against the University of Virginia in what the Washington Post called a “war on the freedom of academic inquiry”“. And Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman evoked Pastor Niemoeller’s cry against the erosion of humanity under the Nazis: “First, they came for the climate scientists…”.
The real climategate involves active censorship within NASA by Bush appointees, which the agency’s Inspector General later found to have “reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science”.
The real climategate involves Bush White House staff replacing assessments of the National Academy of Sciences with a discredited paper by two individuals with no expertise in climatology. This paper, funded by the American Petroleum Ins ute, was so flawed its appearance in a peer-reviewed journal led to the resignation in protest by three editors and the publisher’s unprecedented acknowledgement of mishandling.
Those are not merely historical episodes because the real climategate encompasses the ongoing complicity of some media organs.
In Canada, the real media climategate involves the ongoing list of defamatory articles by the “National Post.” The tabloid is finally being sued by Professor Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria.
In Australia, the real media climategate involves the national daily newspaper, whose misrepresentations of science are legendary and, sadly ongoing.
Those real climategates are the tip of an iceberg of venality enveloping anti-science interests and their enablers.
And just a few hours ago, another illegal release of personal emails among scientists was dumped on to the world in the lead-up to the next climate conference in Durban. First Copenhagen, now Durban. When the science is so rock solid that it can no longer be reasonably doubted, all that is left is to steal private correspondence in a desperate attempt to disparage those who are trying to protect the world from the risks it is facing.
Joseph Welch famously brought down Joe McCarthy with a simple question: “Have you no sense of decency?”
This year has already witnessed multiple events that break climate records: the drought in East Africa, the worst drought in Texas’ recorded history, and record breaking storms and floods in the US south. Those events, anticipated by climatologists decades ago, should remind us that those who persecute and harass scientists, or mendaciously misrepresent their actions and findings, have no sense of decency.
That is the real climategate.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...are-piling-up/
A searchable database: http://foia2011.org
Here's an interesting one:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1606
2007 11:05:20 +0100
from: "Douglas Maraun" <REDACTED>
subject: Informal Seminar TODAY
to: REDACTED
Dear colleagues,
I'd like to invite all of you to todays discussion seminar, 4pm in the
coffee room:
"Climate science and the media"
After the publication of the latest IPCC, the media wrote a vast
number of articles about possible and likely impacts, many of them
greatly exaggerated. The issue seemed to dominate news for a long time
and every company had to consider global warming in its advertisement.
However, much of this sympathy turned out to be either white washing
or political correctness. Furthermore, recently and maybe especially
after the "inconvenient truth" case and the Nobel peace prize going to
Al Gore, many irritated and sceptical comments about so-called
"climatism" appeared also in respectable newspapers.
Against the background of these recent developments, we could discuss
the relation of climate science to the media, the way it is, and the
way it should be.
In my opinion, the question is not so much whether we should at all
deal with the media. Our research is of potential relevance to the
public, so we have to deal with the public. The question is rather how
this should be done. Points I would like to discuss are:
-Is it true that only climate sceptics have political interests and
are potentially biased? If not, how can we deal with this?
-How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think,
that "our" reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann's work were not
especially honest.
-How should we deal with popular science like the Al Gore movie?
-What is the difference between a "climate sceptic" and a "climate denier"?
-What should we do with/against exaggerations of the media?
-How do we avoid sounding religious or arrogant?
-Should we comment on the work/ideas of climate scepitics?
If you have got any further suggestions or do think, my points are not
interesting, please let me know in advance.
See you later,
Douglas
Dr. Douglas Maraun
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas
What's interesting about it?
this, the duped deniers use a few emails to derail the dialogue, to say that the entire body of decades of climate science and antrhropogenic pollution are a lies.
LOL....
Really now. Isn't it obvious?
A few...
There are so many that point to problems with your "climatism" community.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
