Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago
C l i m a t e G a t e
- Thread starter Panameno718
- Start date
Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago
Yeah they always go about it the wrong way and look like crazies.
Yeah they always go about it the wrong way and look like crazies.
Re: Al Gore Confronted On Climategate In Chicago
Dude. It is not that they don't believe in global warming. Just that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. I.E. We don't need a new CO2 tax when it is proven that it is not the cause. The treaty that will be signed will supersede our constitution. The treaty calls for a new gov body that all countries will have to be submit too. They will also will be given a Military to enforce there will on all countries. Which is why they are calling him a traitor.. and many think this new GOV body is the NWO that bush sr. and Kissinger talk about.
The Copenhagen Climate treaty.
Dude. It is not that they don't believe in global warming. Just that CO2 is not the cause of the warming. I.E. We don't need a new CO2 tax when it is proven that it is not the cause. The treaty that will be signed will supersede our constitution. The treaty calls for a new gov body that all countries will have to be submit too. They will also will be given a Military to enforce there will on all countries. Which is why they are calling him a traitor.. and many think this new GOV body is the NWO that bush sr. and Kissinger talk about.
The Copenhagen Climate treaty.
Last edited:
By ARTHUR MAX and KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writers Arthur Max And Karl Ritter, Associated Press Writers – 35 mins ago
COPENHAGEN – The world is entering talks on a new climate pact with unprecendented unity and leaders must seize the moment to create a turning point in the battle against global warming, the U.N.'s top climate official said Sunday. At a news conference, Yvo de Boer called on the 192 nations represented at the U.N. climate summit starting Monday "to deliver a strong and long-term response to the challenge of climate change."
Even so, he worried that e-mails pilfered from a British university would fuel skepticism among those who believe that scientists exaggerate global warming.
"I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case," de Boer told The Associated Press earlier Sunday. "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.'"
E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work.
Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.
"This correspondence looks very bad," de Boer said, but noted that the matter was being investigeted by the university, police and the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. He also defended the research — reviewed by some 2,500 scientists — that shows man has fueled global warming by burning fossil fuels.
"I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there," he said.
U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing called the science on global warming "very robust, very substantial." He told AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an "unfortunate" time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, "but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome."
Climate skeptics meeting in downtown Copenhagen for a panel discussion organized by a Danish nationalist party said the leaked e-mails highlighted the limitations of global warming research.
"There has been a lot of this kind of activity going on, there has been suppression of view points," said Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
Negotiators in Copenhagen are trying to set targets for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases, including by the leading contributors, China and the United States. They will also seek agreement on how much rich countries should pay to help poor nations to deal with climate change.
De Boer told a news conference that Copenhagen must be a "turning point" in the international response to climate change. He said climate targets announced in the runup to the summit were boosting the chances of success — even though they fall short of what scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous levels of warming.
"Never in the 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges toghether," De Boer said. "It's simply unprecdented."
De Boer told AP "it's going to be two weeks of thorough negotiation to try and get the ambition level up and to get the financial specifics on the table."
The emissions cuts offered have disappointed scientists and poorer nations facing damaging climate change. They say greenhouse gases, by 2020, must be reduced by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 output to keep temperatures in the less dangerous range of 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels.
The European Union approaches that target, pledging to cut emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels, and more if others agree. Awaiting U.S. congressional action, however, the Obama administration could make only a provisional offer of a 17 percent reduction by 2020 from 2005 levels. Against 1990, that represents only a 3 to 4 percent cut, experts say.
The developing world, for the first time, is offering its own actions: clean energy projects and other steps to slow the growth of their emissions.
China says it will, by 2020, reduce gases by 40 to 45 percent below "business as usual," that is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output. India offers a 20 to 25 percent slowdown in emissions growth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1bmNsaW1hdGVjaGk-
COPENHAGEN – The world is entering talks on a new climate pact with unprecendented unity and leaders must seize the moment to create a turning point in the battle against global warming, the U.N.'s top climate official said Sunday. At a news conference, Yvo de Boer called on the 192 nations represented at the U.N. climate summit starting Monday "to deliver a strong and long-term response to the challenge of climate change."
Even so, he worried that e-mails pilfered from a British university would fuel skepticism among those who believe that scientists exaggerate global warming.
"I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case," de Boer told The Associated Press earlier Sunday. "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.'"
E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work.
Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.
"This correspondence looks very bad," de Boer said, but noted that the matter was being investigeted by the university, police and the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change. He also defended the research — reviewed by some 2,500 scientists — that shows man has fueled global warming by burning fossil fuels.
"I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there," he said.
U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing called the science on global warming "very robust, very substantial." He told AP that the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails came at an "unfortunate" time, just before the long-awaited U.N. talks, "but has no fundamental bearing on the outcome."
Climate skeptics meeting in downtown Copenhagen for a panel discussion organized by a Danish nationalist party said the leaked e-mails highlighted the limitations of global warming research.
"There has been a lot of this kind of activity going on, there has been suppression of view points," said Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
Negotiators in Copenhagen are trying to set targets for controlling emissions of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases, including by the leading contributors, China and the United States. They will also seek agreement on how much rich countries should pay to help poor nations to deal with climate change.
De Boer told a news conference that Copenhagen must be a "turning point" in the international response to climate change. He said climate targets announced in the runup to the summit were boosting the chances of success — even though they fall short of what scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous levels of warming.
"Never in the 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different nations made so many firm pledges toghether," De Boer said. "It's simply unprecdented."
De Boer told AP "it's going to be two weeks of thorough negotiation to try and get the ambition level up and to get the financial specifics on the table."
The emissions cuts offered have disappointed scientists and poorer nations facing damaging climate change. They say greenhouse gases, by 2020, must be reduced by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 output to keep temperatures in the less dangerous range of 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels.
The European Union approaches that target, pledging to cut emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels, and more if others agree. Awaiting U.S. congressional action, however, the Obama administration could make only a provisional offer of a 17 percent reduction by 2020 from 2005 levels. Against 1990, that represents only a 3 to 4 percent cut, experts say.
The developing world, for the first time, is offering its own actions: clean energy projects and other steps to slow the growth of their emissions.
China says it will, by 2020, reduce gases by 40 to 45 percent below "business as usual," that is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output. India offers a 20 to 25 percent slowdown in emissions growth.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1bmNsaW1hdGVjaGk-
<font size="4"><center>
"Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light
but don't change scientific consensus on global warming;
Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific
misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of
man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded." </font size>
</center>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
"Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light
but don't change scientific consensus on global warming;
Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific
misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of
man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded." </font size>
</center>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
Now the Global Warming crowd is telling you the sun aint got nothin to do with the weather. Next, they will tell us that seasons are abnormal weather behavior. F R A U D ! ! ! !
'No Sun Link' To Climate Change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
Warming trend
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.
'No Sun Link' To Climate Change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm
A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.
It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.
Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.
"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.
Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.
"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.
"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.
Warming trend
The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.
But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.
However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.
Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.
"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.
Maybe I just missed it, but could you please point out the part of the BBC article that says what you're saying.
QueEx
I guess you did ! ! ! ! Stop the word games & look at this for what it is.
Climate has been changing every day that you & I been alive. Now they've drawn a conclusion that the Sun has no link to that change. The simple reason "these scientists" say it's man-made is because they cant tax the Sun - but they can definately tax you & I. It aint about the environment, this is about $$$ (and a lot of it!) Real environmentalists understand their movement has been hijacked by a bunch of corporatist, globalist Muh-Fukaz's. As this whole thing plays out, it is nothing more than a transfer of wealth, out of this country into the hands of a very few
A Scam to surpress human activity, globally!
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...anipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
This Climate treaty is going to give the industrialized nations complete control of the planet's resources. Trust all of this bullshit.
Word games? Sir, words have meanings -- but not the ones you conveniently want to assign to them. You're right, stop the word games and quote the damn provision that makes the statement that YOU made.I guess you did ! ! ! ! Stop the word games & look at this for what it is.
Climate has been changing every day that you & I been alive. Now they've drawn a conclusion that the Sun has no link to that change. The simple reason "these scientists" say it's man-made is because they cant tax the Sun - but they can definately tax you & I. It aint about the environment, this is about $$$ (and a lot of it!) Real environmentalists understand their movement has been hijacked by a bunch of corporatist, globalist Muh-Fukaz's. As this whole thing plays out, it is nothing more than a transfer of wealth, out of this country into the hands of a very few
A Scam to surpress human activity, globally!
QueEx
Did anyone stop to think that, perhaps, the Russians have motives for these new and all of a sudden, revelations ? ? ?
If, as the Russians claim, the data is skewed by using the "wrong" data for Russia, I wonder if that would translate into the Russians having to make less of a monetary contribution to the developing world and having to spend far less to bring its smokestacks, etc., in conformance with whatever norms are agreed to ? ? ?
Frankly, I don't know whether this whole global warming thing is real, imagined or contrived for some nefarious purpose. I do know, however, that some people seem to be incapable of reading with comprenhension.
QueEx
I just posted a misleading article describing how 'the Sun' has nothin to do with Climate Change. My response:
Instead of weather, I should've said Climate Change. Be that as it may, Do you really believe............................"the Sun" has nothing to do with Climate Change?
I don't know whether the article was misleading; but, your comments totally misrepresented the article. The article, (rightfully or wrongfully), didn't say the sun has nothing to do with climate change.
QueEx
Financed by Exxon/Mobil and Koch industries.
'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal
Liberal Media
source: Huffington Post
Last year, the hacked emails of climate scientists from the University of East Anglia spawned what has hitherto become known as "Climategate -- a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam. There was never a whole lot to hang a scandal on, but that didn't stop the frenzy that pushed "Climategate" onto front pages and network news shows.
Of course, since then, the grownups have stepped back to the fore, and five independent investigations have, as Steve Benen points out, "concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound" and that the "deniers' arguments were debunked." Where's the coverage, though? Last week, CJR's Curtis Brainard put out a call:
As Benen points out, credit Howard Kurtz with carrying the ball here:
Liberal Media
source: Huffington Post
Last year, the hacked emails of climate scientists from the University of East Anglia spawned what has hitherto become known as "Climategate -- a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam. There was never a whole lot to hang a scandal on, but that didn't stop the frenzy that pushed "Climategate" onto front pages and network news shows.
Of course, since then, the grownups have stepped back to the fore, and five independent investigations have, as Steve Benen points out, "concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound" and that the "deniers' arguments were debunked." Where's the coverage, though? Last week, CJR's Curtis Brainard put out a call:
Each of these [independent investigations] has, in turn, drawn significant coverage in mainstream media and independent blogs of all varieties and points of view (see round-ups here, here, and here for instance). But only a few brief articles have appeared in newspapers and magazines, and they were usually buried deep inside. It is not surprising that editors have been reluctant to highlight each and every report as it came along (lamentably, documents and letters of this sort are commonly dismissed as having little news value). However, journalists love a good trend, and, as the BBC's Richard Black noted on this blog, these reports are "beginning to look like a pattern." As such, the press (especially the American press) needs to give this story more comprehensive, high profile treatment.
The story is primarily about the mounting rebuttal of this winter's assaults on climate scientists and their work, but also about how the scientific process and assessment of research can be improved. Again, all of the inquiries so far have recommended that individual scientists and the IPCC boost transparency and refine some their methodologies, especially where quality control of data and information is concerned. With the panel gearing up for its fifth assessment report, reporters must explore how they are going to do that.
Brainard pretty deftly underscores what sort of stories drive coverage: a braying spectacle of scandal-mongering is sure to get attention. Dry, academic studies written by experts, not so much. He hangs his hopes on the media's affection for "trend stories," which always tend to command attention -- though it's better if the "trend" is something that falls within a "style" reporter's bailiwick. Scientists who want to get their news out to the public may want to consider doing so in "listicle" form.The story is primarily about the mounting rebuttal of this winter's assaults on climate scientists and their work, but also about how the scientific process and assessment of research can be improved. Again, all of the inquiries so far have recommended that individual scientists and the IPCC boost transparency and refine some their methodologies, especially where quality control of data and information is concerned. With the panel gearing up for its fifth assessment report, reporters must explore how they are going to do that.
As Benen points out, credit Howard Kurtz with carrying the ball here:
On CNN yesterday, Howard Kurtz took note of the trend: "The New York Times, to its credit, put this British report on the front page. Most of the major papers I looked at stuck it inside. CNN's 'Situation Room' did a full story on it, but there was not many mentions on cable news, nothing on the broadcast networks."
This is, unfortunately, quite common. The right erupts with anger, the media treats the "controversy" as a legitimate story, and the public hears all about it. We eventually learn that the story was nonsense, but at that point, the media has lost all interest.
This is, unfortunately, quite common. The right erupts with anger, the media treats the "controversy" as a legitimate story, and the public hears all about it. We eventually learn that the story was nonsense, but at that point, the media has lost all interest.
<EMBED height=260 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=320 src=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201007110006"></EMBED>
Re: 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal
You noticed this too? Where's the g---damn "liberal media" when they actually won? I think Fox News is a fraud but they got their act together. When they decide on what lie they want to tell, they tell it to death.
You noticed this too? Where's the g---damn "liberal media" when they actually won? I think Fox News is a fraud but they got their act together. When they decide on what lie they want to tell, they tell it to death.
Re: 'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal
Where ya at Panameno718, you conspiracy nut. You too Fuckallyal, right wing corporatist.
Where ya at Panameno718, you conspiracy nut. You too Fuckallyal, right wing corporatist.
'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal
Silence like a muthafucka.
Silence like a muthafucka.
M E L T D O W N of the Golbal Warming Consensus! ! ! ! !
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges 'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate" e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds -- though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies,"
The people that don't want to believe any science that contradicts their own personal beliefs weren't doing it before and this has no affect on them. There are currently Republicans running on being against evolution .
Last edited:
Before I look those up and vet those, are you sure they received no money from any fossil fuel interests?
Now Thought, Would I mislead you?
Fa real, read up on them & if there's something that doesn't pass the test, in your eyes, bring it to the boards attention.
It can't be as bad as BP being a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing cap-and-trade.
Even if CO2 isn't the main cause of the warming. There is an interesting connection to the levels of CO2 rising and to the temp rising. Since the CO2 part is man made, and controllable, we should at least attempt to decrease the levels we have artificially raised them to.
Now Thought, Would I mislead you?
Fa real, read up on them & if there's something that doesn't pass the test, in your eyes, bring it to the boards attention.
It can't be as bad as BP being a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing cap-and-trade.
,,,or libertarian judge blocking Gulf oil drilling moratorium!
Yes, trust capitalism over science any day!
Similar threads
