# ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox



## Philobeado

The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.

By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:

ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) 
CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall 
CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?

ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org


----------



## concept

Wow what a shocker.


----------



## Newby

Philobeado said:


> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org



Most people that I've attempted to even discuss this with have no idea what I'm talking about.  Sometimes I think we're a country of fools, they've now gotten to the point where they outnumber anyone with common sense.


----------



## saveliberty

Journalists have the same problems scientists have.  Short on research and fact checking.


----------



## Zander

It will take some time, but the information is out now and it ain't going away.  Once the gullible people that bought into the AGW hoax realize the truth,  there will be a great deal of anger.  This is just the beginning of an enormous scandal.


----------



## Annie

Zander said:


> It will take some time, but the information is out now and it ain't going away.  Once the gullible people that bought into the AGW hoax realize the truth,  there will be a great deal of anger.  This is just the beginning of an enormous scandal.



I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored. 

I think the code is going to be looked at, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.


----------



## MaggieMae

Philobeado said:


> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org



Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan. 

So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take some time, but the information is out now and it ain't going away.  Once the gullible people that bought into the AGW hoax realize the truth,  there will be a great deal of anger.  This is just the beginning of an enormous scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored.
> 
> I think the code is going to be looked at, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.
Click to expand...


Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?


----------



## Oddball

Annie said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take some time, but the information is out now and it ain't going away.  Once the gullible people that bought into the AGW hoax realize the truth,  there will be a great deal of anger.  This is just the beginning of an enormous scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored.
> 
> *I think the code is going to be looked at*, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.
Click to expand...

We have a resident expert...Think I'll ask her.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take some time, but the information is out now and it ain't going away.  Once the gullible people that bought into the AGW hoax realize the truth,  there will be a great deal of anger.  This is just the beginning of an enormous scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored.
> 
> I think the code is going to be looked at, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
Click to expand...


Congress and UK Parliament both are looking into now. Really should keep up, sweetie.


----------



## Zander

MaggieMae said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
Click to expand...

 You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions?  You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will take some time, but the information is out now and it ain't going away.  Once the gullible people that bought into the AGW hoax realize the truth,  there will be a great deal of anger.  This is just the beginning of an enormous scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored.
> 
> I think the code is going to be looked at, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
Click to expand...

NASA, for starters:

Climategate May Spur Lawsuit Against NASA for Denied Information Requests


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
Click to expand...


Here is a link for the emails, Dude took some of them away, LOL!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/95445-the-warmergate-scandal-20.html#post1748609


----------



## Oddball

Only the extensive listing posted here, not the link (which I had posted twice before).


----------



## Annie

Dude said:


> Only the extensive listing posted here, not the link (which I had posted twice before).



I know.  I liked your mid-number comment.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored.
> 
> I think the code is going to be looked at, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress and UK Parliament both are looking into now. Really should keep up, sweetie.
Click to expand...


Congress knows? Imagine that. Here I thought NOBODY knew except the right-wing blogosphere. At least that was the OP analysis.


----------



## MaggieMae

Zander said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions?  You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
Click to expand...


I saw no link anywhere to the actual e-mails. I'm not questioning their content, by the way. What _I'M_ saying is that the right wing fringe has taken off once again on an issue that eventually will be resolved anyway, like THIS is _THE_ most important thing in the whole world. It isn't, except to promulgate your *political* importance.


----------



## Oddball

> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions?  You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no link anywhere to the actual e-mails. I'm not questioning their content, by the way. What _I'M_ saying is that the right wing fringe has taken off once again on an issue that eventually will be resolved anyway, like THIS is _THE_ most important thing in the whole world. It isn't, except to promulgate your *political* importance.
Click to expand...


Dude said he posted the link, twice. I did once, to a USMB link that had the original. Are you just playing dumb? Those were to the emails, searchable too.


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that. I think it's too 'big' to ignore and the implications for scientific research would be irreparably harmed if ignored.
> 
> I think the code is going to be looked at, then I think subpoenas are going to be flying. I hope I'm right on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NASA, for starters:
> 
> Climategate May Spur Lawsuit Against NASA for Denied Information Requests
Click to expand...


"Now we hear at the American Spectator that Chris Horner, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed a notice of intent to sue NASA for refusing for three years to turn over information requested under the Freedom of Information Act."

Hilarious. The right-wing American Spectator had best be careful about entering those muddy waters, since it was George Booooooooooooooooooosh's administration that squelched official NASA reports on global warming a long time ago.


----------



## uscitizen

And who coined the "Climate Gate" name?


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox
Click to expand...


Your family? You really need to get out of the woods more often, Dud.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
> 
> 
> 
> NASA, for starters:
> 
> Climategate May Spur Lawsuit Against NASA for Denied Information Requests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Now we hear at the American Spectator that Chris Horner, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed a notice of intent to sue NASA for refusing for three years to turn over information requested under the Freedom of Information Act."
> 
> Hilarious. The right-wing American Spectator had best be careful about entering those muddy waters, since it was George Booooooooooooooooooosh's administration that squelched official NASA reports on global warming a long time ago.
Click to expand...


Maggie, you are stretching and it's not going to hold. This reminds me a lot of the Dan Rather story, bet you were wrong on that too.


----------



## saveliberty

uscitizen said:


> And who coined the "Climate Gate" name?



Why? Is it stretching your imagination?  Are you confused what they are talking about?


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your family? You really need to get out of the woods more often, Dud.
Click to expand...

*owie*


----------



## slackjawed

I am willing to wait to see what happens as this moves through the courts. 
In the meantime I prefer "manbearpiggate" over climategate.


----------



## Andrew2382

lol not 1 lib on this thread


it's the liberal way....when something doesn't go their way...they ignore it until people stop talking about it and they they go back on to their main talking points as if it never existed.

pathetic


----------



## Oddball

Oh, there's one...And she's flailing horribly.


----------



## saveliberty

RealClearPolitics - The Skeptics Are Vindicated

"There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian yesterday with: "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The e-mails extracted ... could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."

"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. ..."


----------



## Emma

Philobeado said:


> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org



Yeah, totally ignored. 

Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News

Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com

GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com

Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9145220

Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang

washingtonpost.com

You were saying?


----------



## Si modo

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
> 
> 
> 
> NASA, for starters:
> 
> Climategate May Spur Lawsuit Against NASA for Denied Information Requests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Now we hear at the American Spectator that Chris Horner, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed a notice of intent to sue NASA for refusing for three years to turn over information requested under the Freedom of Information Act."
> 
> Hilarious. The right-wing American Spectator had best be careful about entering those muddy waters, since it was George Booooooooooooooooooosh's administration that squelched official NASA reports on global warming a long time ago.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your hysterics, the emails between these 'scientists' demonstrate their willingness not only to compromise their integrity, but the integrity of science and peer-review.


----------



## Charles_Main

You are surprised the Main stream Media which is totally invested and in many ways behind the Over hyping of Global warming, and distortion and cherry picking of facts for the last 20 years, is not covering this?

not surprising to me at all.


----------



## Andrew2382

i really hope there is a congressional investigation into this...i wonder how much of this data the IPCC uses to further their agenda...i mean show their scientific results on how man is warming the planet


what a fucking joke...i wonder if Gore is hiding somewhere with his head up his fucking ass


----------



## Sinatra

The story remains under the radar - it is a blatant reminder of just how deep the leftist agenda goes, and how intertwined it is with global warming.

They are not yet ready to kill off one of their own...


----------



## saveliberty

Emma said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...


All of your sources tried to spin the information.  Nice


----------



## Sinatra

saveliberty said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your sources tried to spin the information.  Nice
Click to expand...



No kidding - this is one of the single biggest scientific scandals of the modern era, and we have the mainstream media portraying it as as secondary oddity story, and then of course, running it with the partisan spin.

The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails, NBC has all but ignored it (GE has too much invested in the Go Green Industry) CBS barely a note...of course they all spent considerable time today commenting on the First Lady's dress at last nights exclusive White House State Dinner party.

The media no longer even attempts to cover its partisan agenda - full steam ahead folks, we MUST do something to combate global warming!!!!


----------



## Oddball

Hey!!...Did y'all hear the news?!?

Donny Osmond won Dancing with the Stars!!!!


----------



## Newby

Sinatra said:


> The story remains under the radar - it is a blatant reminder of just how deep the leftist agenda goes, and how intertwined it is with global warming.
> 
> They are not yet ready to kill off one of their own...



This is the heart of their agenda.  It's the only thing that can be used to control every person on the planet and supposedly have a legitmate reason for doing so.  It's also a huge wealth redistrubtion scheme, and a huge money making scheme for them as well.  With Tax and Trade getting ready to come up which would put a huge weight on the American economy, not to mention the average citizen as far as cost, they have to keep this under the radar.  I have to wonder at all the people working in these media outlets and how they all have so little intergrity.  It's disgusting.


----------



## The T

Sinatra said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your sources tried to spin the information. Nice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding - this is one of the single biggest scientific scandals of the modern era, and we have the mainstream media portraying it as as secondary oddity story, and then of course, running it with the partisan spin.
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails, NBC has all but ignored it (GE has too much invested in the Go Green Industry) CBS barely a note...of course they all spent considerable time today commenting on the First Lady's dress at last nights exclusive White House State Dinner party.
> 
> The media no longer even attempts to cover its partisan agenda - full steam ahead folks, we MUST do something to combate global warming!!!!
Click to expand...

 
For those that haven't seen the E-Mails?

* Dig Through Them Here:* Alleged CRU E-mails

It's alot of reading. Knock yerselves out.

(Kudos to el-Rushbo For the LINK)


----------



## chanel




----------



## Sovereign

I don't doubt that the Earth is warming.  I do doubt that we have anything to do with it.  I will believe that humans are the cause when someone can explain what we humans did to cause the mini ice age.


----------



## Emma

saveliberty said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be *the only national television news outlet in America* interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your sources tried to spin the information.  Nice
Click to expand...

You read all 12 Google pages of reports? 

The OP claims the story is "ignored" by everyone except FNC. That is clearly _false_.


----------



## Emma

Sinatra said:


> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails



Try again lol. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse

In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.


----------



## saveliberty

Emma said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> 
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your sources tried to spin the information.  Nice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You read all 12 Google pages of reports?
> 
> The OP claims the story is "ignored" by everyone except FNC. That is clearly _false_.
Click to expand...


They were ignored by everyone but Fox News.  None of your stories aired on TV.  Your just pissed someone bothered to check you and you failed.  Not my problem.


----------



## Oddball

Emma said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...

They can't link to anything in the hard copy, where they've tried to claim the high ground by not printing "stolen" data, even though  they had no compunctions against publishing the Pentagon Papers.


----------



## The T

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't link to anything in the hard copy, where they've tried to claim the high ground by not printing "stolen" data, even though they had no compunctions against publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Click to expand...

 
Or anything _else_ that compromises the Security of this Republic. They're totally transparent. Great point.


----------



## Emma

saveliberty said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your sources tried to spin the information.  Nice
> 
> 
> 
> You read all 12 Google pages of reports?
> 
> The OP claims the story is "ignored" by everyone except FNC. That is clearly _false_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were ignored by everyone but Fox News.  None of your stories aired on TV.  Your just pissed someone bothered to check you and you failed.  Not my problem.
Click to expand...


This thread is a major fail. The story was carried by every major news outlet. Sorry.


----------



## Emma

Dude said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't link to anything in the hard copy, where they've tried to claim the high ground by not printing "stolen" data, even though  they had no compunctions against publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Click to expand...


Well, lets move the goalposts again LOL. 

This was reported by every major news outlet. Period.


----------



## Terry

Dude said:


> Hey!!...Did y'all hear the news?!?
> 
> Donny Osmond won Dancing with the Stars!!!!


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqg3pyaAJUM[/ame]


----------



## Modbert

People try to continue to move the goal posts when this wasn't ignored by the media. In fact, this is turning out to be the same thing like the Tea Party rallies. The meme that only Fox covered it is a bold faced lie, just like it is here.


----------



## Oddball

I never said it was completely ignored, just that the NYT street edition has printed none of the e-mails, and cynically claimed that their doing so is based upon claiming the moral high ground...Which is preposterous on its face.


----------



## Andrew2382

heres the difference.

Sure the other media outlets may have reported it...but how much exposure are they actually giving it?

This should be a major story...I'm sure MSNBC and other media outlets talked about it for a minute did a little clip and never showed it again.  I watched MSNBC (painfully) for 2 str8 hours yesterday and I didn't see one clip on it.  I flipped back and forth on the opinion shows and didn't hear anything as well.  

Perhaps the thread title should be no media outlet other then fox is giving this story any real exposure like it deserves.

I'm sure if it was reversed and there were e-mails from skeptics going back and forth saying they are wrong and manipulating data...it would be ALL OVER THE FUCKING NEWS.

If anyone denies that, they are just fucking crazy


----------



## The T

Andrew2382 said:


> heres the difference.
> 
> Sure the other media outlets may have reported it...but how much exposure are they actually giving it?
> 
> This should be a major story...I'm sure MSNBC and other media outlets talked about it for a minute did a little clip and never showed it again. I watched MSNBC (painfully) for 2 str8 hours yesterday and I didn't see one clip on it. I flipped back and forth on the opinion shows and didn't hear anything as well.
> 
> Perhaps the thread title should be no media outlet other then fox is giving this story any real exposure like it deserves.
> 
> I'm sure if it was reversed and there were e-mails from skeptics going back and forth saying they are wrong and manipulating data...it would be ALL OVER THE FUCKING NEWS.
> 
> If anyone denies that, they are just fucking crazy


 
On the point. What this really boils down to is investigating and finding out the validity of it all. Lip service mention is a disservice, if the media wants to continue to cling to their self-proclaimed "_unbiased_" claims.

Investigation should commence no matter whaich "side" any untward story comes from.

As of right now? The Media as we know it IS Biased.

But then those whom wrote the mails are hoping it all blows over, and are counting on "Short Attention Span" Theatre that appears to be the American public of late.


----------



## The T

Dude said:


> I never said it was completely ignored, just that the NYT street edition has printed none of the e-mails, and cynically claimed that their doing so is based upon claiming the moral high ground...Which is preposterous on its face.


 
Defining line.


----------



## Sinatra

The climategate scandal is NOT on the NY Times front page.

You want to know what is?  Obama's trip to the Copenhagen climate talks - and within that article, not ONE WORD on the climate emails scandal.

Now we have two scandals - the emails showing manipulation of the climate data, and the ongoing mainstream media coverup...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp


----------



## asaratis

MaggieMae said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions?  You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no link anywhere to the actual e-mails. I'm not questioning their content, by the way. What _I'M_ saying is that the right wing fringe has taken off once again on an issue that eventually will be resolved anyway, like THIS is _THE_ most important thing in the whole world. It isn't, except to promulgate your *political* importance.
Click to expand...

Al Gore has been promulgating his political importance for years with this global warming scam....got himself a Nobel Prize doin' it.



saveliberty said:


> RealClearPolitics - The Skeptics Are Vindicated
> 
> "There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian yesterday with: "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The e-mails extracted ... could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."
> 
> "Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. ..."


They are about to pay dearly for their lying and trickery.



Emma said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> Hackers Leak E-Mails, Stoke Climate Debate - ABC News
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...

Thanks  for posting those.  They are indicative of the bias against those that have doubted the global warming scam from the beginning.  Some even seem to write the manipulations off as inconsequential or harmless.

I say the scientific community has suffered a great blow regarding the public's confidence in their honesty.

It seems the skepticism was warranted.   Al Gore and his band of "scientists" have been exposed as fraudulent.  Al should go to prison.


----------



## Andrew2382

I also went to MSNBC.com and couldn't find it on the front page as well.

Maybe I missed it.  I went through the sub topics...figured it would be under science and tech.

Nothing

But good news

Assasins Creed 2 looks to be a great game...thank you MSNBC for that report!


----------



## The T

asaratis said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions? You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no link anywhere to the actual e-mails. I'm not questioning their content, by the way. What _I'M_ saying is that the right wing fringe has taken off once again on an issue that eventually will be resolved anyway, like THIS is _THE_ most important thing in the whole world. It isn't, except to promulgate your *political* importance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, totally ignored.
> 
> Hacker scandal sends ripples through ... - Google News
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> GOP opens probe into climate science e-mails - Politics- msnbc.com
> 
> Hackers Leak E-mails, Stoke Climate Debate - CBS News
> 
> Hackers Leak E-Mails, Stoke Climate Debate - ABC News
> 
> Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files - The Two-Way - Breaking News, Analysis Blog : NPR
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
> 
> Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press - Capital Weather Gang
> 
> washingtonpost.com
> 
> You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting those. They are indicative of the bias against those that have doubted the global warming scam from the beginning. Some even seem to write the manipulations off as inconsequential or harmless.
> 
> I say the scientific community has suffered a great blow regarding the public's confidence in their honesty.
> 
> It seems the skepticism was warranted. Al Gore and his band of "scientists" have been exposed as fraudulent. Al should go to prison.
Click to expand...

 
And so should the _AUTHORS_ of the "Cap And Trade" Legislation that was/IS based upon a false premise.

I hope the calls to investigate this in the Congress are heeded before a _gross_ seizing of _American Liberty_ is voted in as _LAW._


----------



## The T

Andrew2382 said:


> I also went to MSNBC.com and couldn't find it on the front page as well.
> 
> Maybe I missed it. I went through the sub topics...figured it would be under science and tech.
> 
> Nothing
> 
> But good news
> 
> Assasins Creed 2 looks to be a great game...thank you MSNBC for that report!


 
*


----------



## Oddball

Andrew2382 said:


> I also went to MSNBC.com and couldn't find it on the front page as well.
> 
> Maybe I missed it.  I went through the sub topics...figured it would be under science and tech.
> 
> Nothing
> 
> But good news
> 
> Assasins Creed 2 looks to be a great game...thank you MSNBC for that report!


HEY!.....Donny Osmond won Dancing with the Stars!

And they say that journalism is dead.


----------



## Andrew2382

as we speak

Climategate is being talked about on Fox News

Nothing on MSNBC or CNN


----------



## Sinatra

Yeah - a bit more looking, and guess what?

Along with the blackout on the NY Times, NO mention of the climategate scandal on MSNBC's front page, nor ABC's front page, nor CBS's front page.

What does CBS have on it's front page?  A story outlining how polling for belief in climate change in America has "dipped" - though according to the report, a majority of Americans still support capping our carbon output.  (WTF???)  NOT ONE SINGLE WORD on the climategate reports.

What we have here is a story that broke - a HUGE story within the climate change debate, followed QUICKLY by Obama announcing he is going to Copenhagen to speak at the climate change summit - something that was indicated he would not do just weeks prior.  Then we have the media ignoring the climategate emails, and repeating the "Obama to Copenhagen" story over and over again on their front page news.

Collusion in climate science meet collusion in the media...


Fewer Believe Global Warming, Poll Finds - CBS News

Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News- msnbc.com

News - ABC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp


----------



## Ravi

This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.


----------



## Andrew2382

I know Ravi...when shit doesn't go your way the best medicine is probably to shrug it off.

Because according to you the media isn't liberal

The planet is 100% without a doubt warming specfically because of man

I mean

who the fuck needs evidence.

I would love to see how much data the IPCC uses from the CRU


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.



You're wrong.  NPR is reporting on it.  NPR is one of the few objective news sources out there.  BTW, BBC is also reporting.  

Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality

Climategate: Suing NASA


----------



## saveliberty

Ravi said:


> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.



Since it is just funny, you will refrain from defending the global warming side then?  Some of the strongest supporters are pealing away.


----------



## Sinatra

Fox has on its front page the following editorial:

*Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate'*

...The New York Times argues: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won&#8217;t be posted here." -- This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents! Yet, these e-mails were covered by England's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released when they were requested. Hiding data, destroying information, and doctoring their results raise real questions about many American academics at universities such as Pennsylvania State University, University of Arizona, and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. When at all possible available data must be shared.

*Usually academic research is completely ignored by the general public but in this case proposed regulations, costing trillions of dollars, are being based on many of these claimed research results. This coordinated campaign to hide scientific information appears unprecedented.*

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About &#39;Climate-gate&#39; - FOXNews.com


----------



## Ravi

Mr. Peepers said:


> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  NPR is reporting on it.  NPR is one of the few objective news sources out there.  BTW, BBC is also reporting.
> 
> Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality
> 
> Climategate: Suing NASA
Click to expand...

 That can't be true.


----------



## Sinatra

Mr. Peepers said:


> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.  NPR is reporting on it.  NPR is one of the few objective news sources out there.  BTW, BBC is also reporting.
> 
> Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality
> 
> Climategate: Suing NASA
Click to expand...


____

NPR is doing some reporting on it - but NPR is not CBS, ABC, NBC, or the NY Times.

Sadly, what NPR is doing is the exception - hopefully that will change.

In England, it is being treated -correctly - as far bigger news than it has in the US...


----------



## Oddball

Overstated at the OP is, how does the BBC qualify as _*AMERICAN*_ lamestream media?

As it was during the Bush years, the only place we can get all the news is friggin' Europe!


----------



## Mr. Peepers

> Sadly, what NPR is doing is the exception - hopefully that will change.



No it isn't.  You obviously never listen to NPR or you wouldn't make such a false statement.


----------



## Sinatra

Mr. Peepers said:


> Sadly, what NPR is doing is the exception - hopefully that will change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  You obviously never listen to NPR or you wouldn't make such a false statement.
Click to expand...



You dolt - NPR is the exception to all the other media outlets NOT reporting on it...


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> NASA, for starters:
> 
> Climategate May Spur Lawsuit Against NASA for Denied Information Requests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now we hear at the American Spectator that Chris Horner, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed a notice of intent to sue NASA for refusing for three years to turn over information requested under the Freedom of Information Act."
> 
> Hilarious. The right-wing American Spectator had best be careful about entering those muddy waters, since it was George Booooooooooooooooooosh's administration that squelched official NASA reports on global warming a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maggie, you are stretching and it's not going to hold. This reminds me a lot of the Dan Rather story, bet you were wrong on that too.
Click to expand...


I swear some of you must have been in a coma or in diapers not too long ago. This was not a rumor, or even a story based on unsubstantiated evidence.

Political Interference with Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration, December 2007 - Council on Foreign Relations


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> Oh, there's one...And she's flailing horribly.



Flailing? Sorry, Dud, but I always like to wait and see the end result before jumping to conclusions, as is the favorite MO of the rabid right. If these emails change the general opinion of top environmental scientists, so be it. Who am I to argue? That said, I do think it's oddly coincidental, based on the age of some of those emails, that they have suddenly appeared as being relevant. After all, there has been much opposing scientific analysis on global warming. Why weren't these presented before now to bolster their argument? Just saying. 

But if you feel better thinking you've scored another smackdown of me, then I'm so glad I made your day. I always feel charitable this time of year. Enjoy your moment.


----------



## Oddball

Turns out the results of the AGW "experts" have been fudged.

Even the authors of those e-mails have come out and admitted that they're authentic...Besides, the embedded codes don't lie.

Yes, you're flailing every bit as much as the apologists for Nixon did.


----------



## MaggieMae

Ravi said:


> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.



Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.

Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.


----------



## Si modo

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Now we hear at the American Spectator that Chris Horner, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has filed a notice of intent to sue NASA for refusing for three years to turn over information requested under the Freedom of Information Act."
> 
> Hilarious. The right-wing American Spectator had best be careful about entering those muddy waters, since it was George Booooooooooooooooooosh's administration that squelched official NASA reports on global warming a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maggie, you are stretching and it's not going to hold. This reminds me a lot of the Dan Rather story, bet you were wrong on that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I swear some of you must have been in a coma or in diapers not too long ago. This was not a rumor, or even a story based on unsubstantiated evidence.
> 
> Political Interference with Climate Change Science Under the Bush Administration, December 2007 - Council on Foreign Relations
Click to expand...

Ummm, Maggie...perhaps you heard about the story in the topic?  Focus, just try.


----------



## Andrew2382

lol there are more newsworthy topics at hand

you fucking dolt.

Thank you for proving our point.

It's not newsworthy to you because it doesn't push your fucking agenda and point of view and shows what a fucking joke you guys are.

I'm sure if it was e-mails of skeptics you would be all over it right

you stupid hypocritical bitch


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
Click to expand...

250+ gigs of incriminating evidence isn't going to go away any more than the Pentagon Papers did.


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 250+ gigs of incriminating evidence isn't going to go away any more than the Pentagon Papers did.
Click to expand...


As I said, why is this stuff appearing just NOW? Can you answer that?


----------



## Si modo

MaggieMae said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
Click to expand...

No big deal, eh?  Manipulation of data and the peer-review process in science bores you.  Partisan hack.


----------



## Intense

Follow the Money!!!!!!! I Propose an Idiot Tax on All Companies connected To Algore, Start small at 150%.


----------



## Andrew2382

it's appearing just now...because it happened just now...


why is that difficult?


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 250+ gigs of incriminating evidence isn't going to go away any more than the Pentagon Papers did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, why is this stuff appearing just NOW? Can you answer that?
Click to expand...

Don't care...It's never the wrong time for the truth to come out and for frauds to be exposed.

Why is the timing important to you?...That desperate for a deflection from substance?


----------



## Ravi

MaggieMae said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
Click to expand...

 The keyboards in rightwingnut land are covered in drool.

What amuses me the most is that if it turns out some of these scientists acted unethically these dolts believe that means all scientists are unethical and there is some world wide conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax. And the Republican pols are jumping on the bandwagon.


----------



## Intense

But We All Agreed!!!!!


----------



## Ravi

Andrew2382 said:


> lol there are more newsworthy topics at hand
> 
> you fucking dolt.
> 
> Thank you for proving our point.
> 
> It's not newsworthy to you because it doesn't push your fucking agenda and point of view and shows what a fucking joke you guys are.
> 
> I'm sure if it was e-mails of skeptics you would be all over it right
> 
> you stupid hypocritical bitch


I see you changed "****" to "bitch." Getting a little hot under the collar?


----------



## Si modo

Ravi said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The keyboards in rightwingnut land are covered in drool.
> 
> What amuses me the most is that if it turns out some of these scientists acted unethically these dolts believe that means all scientists are unethical and there is some world wide conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax. And the Republican pols are jumping on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Really?  That's what we all believe?  You must be stoned, too.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No big deal, eh?  Manipulation of data and the peer-review process in science bores you.  Partisan hack.
Click to expand...


I was particularly interested in the email telling academics to delete their email trials in case there was a FoI request!!!  WTF?


----------



## Andrew2382

Ravi said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The keyboards in rightwingnut land are covered in drool.
> 
> What amuses me the most is that if it turns out some of these scientists acted unethically these dolts believe that means all scientists are unethical and there is some world wide conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax. And the Republican pols are jumping on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...



moron

you do realize the IPCC uses data from the CRU to base their agenda opinionated conclusions on right?

So when that data is manipluated in a way to show a result that really isn't true.

it should be a big deal

then again tho...this contradicts something the brainwashed liberal thinks....so lets sweep it under the rug

fckin pathetic


----------



## Andrew2382

Ravi said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol there are more newsworthy topics at hand
> 
> you fucking dolt.
> 
> Thank you for proving our point.
> 
> It's not newsworthy to you because it doesn't push your fucking agenda and point of view and shows what a fucking joke you guys are.
> 
> I'm sure if it was e-mails of skeptics you would be all over it right
> 
> you stupid hypocritical bitch
> 
> 
> 
> I see you changed "****" to "bitch." Getting a little hot under the collar?
Click to expand...


eh...i decided **** might be too harsh of a word

thats all you got on me?

i changed **** to bitch

whose laughing at who you fuckin moron


----------



## Si modo

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 250+ gigs of incriminating evidence isn't going to go away any more than the Pentagon Papers did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, why is this stuff appearing just NOW? Can you answer that?
Click to expand...

Because these communications were just discovered.  Do you actually read anything before you hop on your partisan broomstick?


----------



## Oddball

Ravi said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is getting to be as funny as the birther craze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The keyboards in rightwingnut land are covered in drool.
> 
> What amuses me the most is that if it turns out some of these scientists acted unethically these dolts believe that means all scientists are unethical and there is some world wide conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax. And the Republican pols are jumping on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

Now you're not understanding the implications of this on purpose.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you, that the asses of those who reviewed and verified the work of the frauds are on the line, along with those who based further studies on the bad information too, before it sinks in?


----------



## The T

Andrew2382 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they'll tire of this one too. Next week they'll be all over something else. It's frankly getting old.
> 
> Ironically, if you do try to find an article on these emails, all you get are page after page of right-wing publications and blogs on the subject. Maybe the rest of MSM has decided to let them play with this latest toy all by their lonesome. There are other more newsworthy topics at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> The keyboards in rightwingnut land are covered in drool.
> 
> What amuses me the most is that if it turns out some of these scientists acted unethically these dolts believe that means all scientists are unethical and there is some world wide conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax. And the Republican pols are jumping on the bandwagon.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> moron
> 
> you do realize the IPCC uses data from the CRU to base their agenda opinionated conclusions on right?
> 
> So when that data is manipluated in a way to show a result that really isn't true.
> 
> it should be a big deal
> 
> then again tho...this contradicts something the brainwashed liberal thinks....so lets sweep it under the rug
> 
> fckin_* pathetic*_
Click to expand...

 
Totally. And these so-called "Scientists" were NOT as willing to share their figures with others, especially those 'peers' that weren't necessarily politically _aligned as they were._

The E-Mails and the Links to them bear this out. Wha this HAS DONE is put a BLACK EYE on legitimate Science for political motivation.


----------



## Andrew2382

unless Obama comes out and tell these lemmings this is a big deal they will never admit it to it.

They are pathetic


----------



## Intense

They profit too much from the lie! Denial is a Process.


----------



## Andrew2382

liberals hate big business

that is unless it's the big business they themselves create and prosper from


----------



## Intense

What is the tax on a 50 cent light bulb as opposed to a $10.00 light bulb filled with carcinogens???


----------



## The T

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded"]Hide The Decline - Climategate[/ame]*

***Thanks To el-Rushbo For the LINK**


----------



## California Girl

Andrew2382 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol there are more newsworthy topics at hand
> 
> you fucking dolt.
> 
> Thank you for proving our point.
> 
> It's not newsworthy to you because it doesn't push your fucking agenda and point of view and shows what a fucking joke you guys are.
> 
> I'm sure if it was e-mails of skeptics you would be all over it right
> 
> you stupid hypocritical bitch
> 
> 
> 
> I see you changed "****" to "bitch." Getting a little hot under the collar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eh...i decided **** might be too harsh of a word
> 
> thats all you got on me?
> 
> i changed **** to bitch
> 
> whose laughing at who you fuckin moron
Click to expand...


I, for one, appreciate you changing that word. It is beneath someone of your quality to stoop so low.  Leave that term to the seriously stupid.... bitch is much more acceptable. As you will see from my avatar!


----------



## Zoom-boing

Wasn't FOX the only one reporting on the Van Jones too?  How'd that work out?


----------



## The T

Zoom-boing said:


> Wasn't FOX the only one reporting on the Van Jones too? How'd that work out?


 Can you say _ousted? Thrown under the BUS? A new SPEEDBUMP for Obama? SURE...I knew ya could! _


----------



## Andrew2382

lol i love how all the libs on this thread only say things about how whacky us conservatives are and can't say anything about the topic at hand and how fucked up this situation is.


----------



## Oddball

Andrew2382 said:


> lol i love how all the libs on this thread only say things about how whacky us conservatives are and can't say anything about the topic at hand and how fucked up this situation is.


_*iDENIER!*_


----------



## California Girl

The T said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't FOX the only one reporting on the Van Jones too? How'd that work out?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say _ousted? Thrown under the BUS? A new SPEEDBUMP for Obama? SURE...I knew ya could! _
Click to expand...


He had his designer label suit dry cleaned, but sadly, the tire marks remain.


----------



## The T

Yeah...this thread does say FOX NEWS doesn't it? OK...(FAUX NEWS) for you steaming piles of Liberalism/Statism)...

Did you guys catch Ed Begley Jr. Yesterday on FOX (FAUX for you LIBZ)?

LOL...Caught like a RAT in a trap...

*LINK*

*One of the biggest scandals of the millenium...like a deer in the proverbial headlights...LOL!*

**I* Think he's PISSED he fell for it too...and doesn't want to ADMIT IT...*

**NOTICE* He says "PEER REVIEWED STUDIES*...but what IF ED baby? That some of the PEERS were LOCKED OUT on purpose as the E-Mails suggest??*

*LOL!*


----------



## The T

California Girl said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't FOX the only one reporting on the Van Jones too? How'd that work out?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say _ousted? Thrown under the BUS? A new SPEEDBUMP for Obama? SURE...I knew ya could! _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had his designer label suit dry cleaned, but sadly, the tire marks remain.
Click to expand...

 

I can always depend upon you, CG! Good Form! Love road pizza, don't you?


----------



## The T

The T said:


> Yeah...this thread does say FOX NEWS doesn't it? OK...(FAUX NEWS) for you steaming piles of Liberalism/Statism)...
> 
> Did you guys catch Ed Begley Jr. Yesterday on FOX (FAUX for you LIBZ)?
> 
> LOL...Caught like a RAT in a trap...
> 
> *LINK*
> 
> *One of the biggest scandals of the millenium...like a deer in the proverbial headlights...LOL!*
> 
> **I* Think he's PISSED he fell for it too...and doesn't want to ADMIT IT...*
> 
> **NOTICE* He says "PEER REVIEWED STUDIES*...but what IF ED baby? That some of the PEERS were LOCKED OUT on purpose as the E-Mails suggest??*
> 
> *LOL!*


 
And go figure huh? He CITES Kalifornia? And what state of affairs is Kalifornia in these days? How many people have LOST their livleyhood becuse of some dumbass FISH in recent months? How in the _RED..._

...Is Kalifornia for dipshit stuff as Eddie seems to suggest here? ED? Wake the HELL UP..._you've been taken for a RIDE...and I'll bet the Longest roller-Coaster ride of your sad, pathetic LIFE...huh, ED? _


----------



## saveliberty

NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.


----------



## Ravi

Mr. Peepers said:


> Sadly, what NPR is doing is the exception - hopefully that will change.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  You obviously never listen to NPR or you wouldn't make such a false statement.
Click to expand...

You were correct. They did a thoughtful, non-hysterical piece on it tonight. Sadly, they sounded so objective that I've no doubt they will be considered as part of the world wide conspiracy by the rightwingnuts.

Stolen E-Mails Raise Questions On Climate Research : NPR


----------



## Zoom-boing

The T said:


> Yeah...this thread does say FOX NEWS doesn't it? OK...(FAUX NEWS) for you steaming piles of Liberalism/Statism)...
> 
> Did you guys catch Ed Begley Jr. Yesterday on FOX (FAUX for you LIBZ)?
> 
> LOL...Caught like a RAT in a trap...
> 
> *LINK*
> 
> *One of the biggest scandals of the millenium...like a deer in the proverbial headlights...LOL!*
> 
> **I* Think he's PISSED he fell for it too...and doesn't want to ADMIT IT...*
> 
> **NOTICE* He says "PEER REVIEWED STUDIES*...but what IF ED baby? That some of the PEERS were LOCKED OUT on purpose as the E-Mails suggest??*
> 
> *LOL!*



Ed Begely is a sarcastic, neurotic, awkward, thoughtless and insensitive human being.  Oh wait, that was Victor Erlich, the character he played on _St. Elsewhere_.  I see he drew on personal traits for his act-ing.  

How come no one is in here crying about Eddie's shouting down the host . . . er, doing 'an O'Reilly'?  Dang must be that there isn't an 'R' next to his name.  He's sucked down every drop of the man-made global warming koolaid . . . and licked the glass to boot.


----------



## Oddball

Zoom-boing said:


> Ed Begely is a sarcastic, neurotic, awkward, thoughtless and insensitive human being.  Oh wait, that was Victor Erlich, the character he played on _St. Elsewhere_.  I see he drew on personal traits for his act-ing.
> 
> How come no one is in here crying about Eddie's shouting down the host . . . er, doing 'an O'Reilly'?  Dang must be that there isn't an 'R' next to his name.  He's sucked down every drop of the man-made global warming koolaid . . . and licked the glass to boot.


"Don't take my word for it....Don't take my word for it..."

Rings pretty hollow from a goober who has a website where you _*are *_supposed to take his word for it.

Living With Ed : Planet Green


----------



## Zoom-boing

Dude said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Begely is a sarcastic, neurotic, awkward, thoughtless and insensitive human being.  Oh wait, that was Victor Erlich, the character he played on _St. Elsewhere_.  I see he drew on personal traits for his act-ing.
> 
> How come no one is in here crying about Eddie's shouting down the host . . . er, doing 'an O'Reilly'?  Dang must be that there isn't an 'R' next to his name.  He's sucked down every drop of the man-made global warming koolaid . . . and licked the glass to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't take my word for it....Don't take my word for it..."
> 
> *Rings pretty hollow from a goober who has a website where you are supposed to take his word for it.*
> 
> Living With Ed : Planet Green
Click to expand...


Unbelievable, isn't he?
Goober describes him to a t.


----------



## driveby

Ahhh hell, that's why i couldn't find this to rent last night, i didn't look in the Science Fiction section ......


----------



## California Girl

The T said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say _ousted? Thrown under the BUS? A new SPEEDBUMP for Obama? SURE...I knew ya could! _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had his designer label suit dry cleaned, but sadly, the tire marks remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can always depend upon you, CG! Good Form! Love road pizza, don't you?
Click to expand...


I'm sure he donated the suit to some poor person.... onward and upward for the 'Green Jobs Czar'....  on the bright side, with the evidence that there is no need for 'green jobs', he'd have been canned anyway.


----------



## asaratis

Were it not for the music, I would never listen to NPR...bunch of liberal sleaze balls, speaking softly, as if that adds to their credibility.


----------



## Charles_Main

Emma said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...


LOL and Internet link is not the same as publishing them in their printed paper. 

You better believe if these were military secrets that hurt our interests they would be posting them, but since it does not fit their agenda for everyone to see these emails. They make excuses.

Its hilarious, if these were some secrets about enhanced interrogation or something you guys would be screaming at the Times for not posting them.

Liberal Hippocrates never cease to amaze me. 

Trillions and trillions of dollars are being or are going to be spent By nations around the earth. Whole ways of life are being asked to be changed. All based largely on the work of this small group of scientists. Their work, especially in relation to the 2000 Year Temp Record and the So called Hockey stick graph. forms the very back bone of the entire argument. It is only prudent we should learn as much about this as we can. 

It appears to me they are and were at the very least doctoring things to look worse than they are, if not covering up that they were dead wrong and despite rising CO2 Levels the earth simply is not warming like they thought. Which only proves there are way more factors involved than Humans, and they clearly do not know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to any long term predictions. 

It is not surprising to me, It is these same people who keep harping on how much ice has melted in the Northern Hemisphere and almost always fail to mention nearly as much ice has been gained in the southern hemisphere. 

See its that whole the earth has cycles thing biting them in the ass. lol.


----------



## Old Rocks

Charles_Main said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL and Internet link is not the same as publishing them in their printed paper.
> 
> You better believe if these were military secrets that hurt our interests they would be posting them, but since it does not fit their agenda for everyone to see these emails. They make excuses.
> 
> Its hilarious, if these were some secrets about enhanced interrogation or something you guys would be screaming at the Times for not posting them.
> 
> Liberal Hippocrates never cease to amaze me.
> 
> Trillions and trillions of dollars are being or are going to be spent By nations around the earth. Whole ways of life are being asked to be changed. All based largely on the work of this small group of scientists. Their work, especially in relation to the 2000 Year Temp Record and the So called Hockey stick graph. forms the very back bone of the entire argument. It is only prudent we should learn as much about this as we can.
> 
> It appears to me they are and were at the very least doctoring things to look worse than they are, if not covering up that they were dead wrong and despite rising CO2 Levels the earth simply is not warming like they thought. Which only proves there are way more factors involved than Humans, and they clearly do not know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to any long term predictions.
> 
> It is not surprising to me, It is these same people who keep harping on how much ice has melted in the Northern Hemisphere and almost always fail to mention nearly as much ice has been gained in the southern hemisphere.
> 
> See its that whole the earth has cycles thing biting them in the ass. lol.
Click to expand...


Yes, stupid ass. The southern hemisphere is gaining ice? Antarctica is melting, East and West. The big glaciers in South America are melting. A bit of a gain in sea ice at the coldest part of the winter, and that is all.

The earth is warming, every bit as they thought, and, in fact, faster than they thought.

E-mails out of context, obtained criminally, are your basis for accusing the whole of the scientific community of fraud. Going to be interesting to see what happens next.


----------



## Charles_Main

old rocks said:


> charles_main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> in the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol and internet link is not the same as publishing them in their printed paper.
> 
> You better believe if these were military secrets that hurt our interests they would be posting them, but since it does not fit their agenda for everyone to see these emails. They make excuses.
> 
> Its hilarious, if these were some secrets about enhanced interrogation or something you guys would be screaming at the times for not posting them.
> 
> Liberal hippocrates never cease to amaze me.
> 
> Trillions and trillions of dollars are being or are going to be spent by nations around the earth. Whole ways of life are being asked to be changed. All based largely on the work of this small group of scientists. Their work, especially in relation to the 2000 year temp record and the so called hockey stick graph. Forms the very back bone of the entire argument. It is only prudent we should learn as much about this as we can.
> 
> It appears to me they are and were at the very least doctoring things to look worse than they are, if not covering up that they were dead wrong and despite rising co2 levels the earth simply is not warming like they thought. Which only proves there are way more factors involved than humans, and they clearly do not know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to any long term predictions.
> 
> it is not surprising to me, it is these same people who keep harping on how much ice has melted in the northern hemisphere and almost always fail to mention nearly as much ice has been gained in the southern hemisphere.
> 
> see its that whole the earth has cycles thing biting them in the ass. Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, stupid ass. The southern hemisphere is gaining ice? Antarctica is melting, east and west. The big glaciers in south america are melting. A bit of a gain in sea ice at the coldest part of the winter, and that is all.
> 
> The earth is warming, every bit as they thought, and, in fact, faster than they thought.
> 
> E-mails out of context, obtained criminally, are your basis for accusing the whole of the scientific community of fraud. Going to be interesting to see what happens next.
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## edthecynic

MaggieMae said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions? * You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean.* Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I saw no link anywhere to the actual e-mails. I'm not questioning their content,* by the way. What _I'M_ saying is that the right wing fringe has taken off once again on an issue that eventually will be resolved anyway, like THIS is _THE_ most important thing in the whole world. It isn't, except to promulgate your *political* importance.
Click to expand...

The CON$ won't post the actual emails because you will see you should question their content.
The CON$ take a word here and there OUT OF CONTEXT to claim SCANDAL. Only CON$ would consider it a scandalous TRICK to use REAL TEMPS. 

Here is a sample of the purportedly hacked material (1079 emails and 72 documents) available online: 

From: Phil Jones 
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX 
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement 
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX 

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, 

Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 

*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 from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.* Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. 

Thanks for the comments, Ray. 

Cheers 
Phil 

Prof. Phil Jones 
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX 
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX 
University of East Anglia 
Norwich


----------



## Oddball

Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?



> _*" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_


~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.


----------



## Emma

UEA emails: Cherry picking phrases (out of context) doesn&#039;t further the climate discussion | Midwest Voices



> The emails are part of the normal scientific discussion. There is no proof in them of a conspiracy to lie about climate change. There is no proof in them that current climate change theory is off base. In fact, they reach the opposite conclusion.
> 
> They can, however, be viewed more selectively, and less in context, and be made to look as if they're proving whatever the reader wants them to prove.
> 
> The furore, therefore, stems from the fact that these are not documents, but pieces of a conversation. Without taking into account the entire conversation, it's really not wise to read anything into them. There's a reason these emails were not intentionally published, and it's not nefarious.


----------



## Oddball

I've sen those opinions in print too, Emma.

Problem is that there are precious few facts to back up that opinion-based "journalism".

And don't tell me that the author of that piece has gone through all 250+ gigs of documents in this dump, because _*nobody*_ has.


----------



## Si modo

Emma said:


> UEA emails: Cherry picking phrases (out of context) doesn't further the climate discussion | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The emails are part of the normal scientific discussion. There is no proof in them of a conspiracy to lie about climate change. There is no proof in them that current climate change theory is off base. In fact, they reach the opposite conclusion.
> 
> They can, however, be viewed more selectively, and less in context, and be made to look as if they're proving whatever the reader wants them to prove.
> 
> The furore, therefore, stems from the fact that these are not documents, but pieces of a conversation. Without taking into account the entire conversation, it's really not wise to read anything into them. There's a reason these emails were not intentionally published, and it's not nefarious.
Click to expand...

I've gone through a lot of them, certainly not all or even close to all.  But, none of the communications I read were out of context at all.  I read entire email conversations and the insult to the integrity of science and peer-review is unforgivable in what I have seen.

Luckily, I was able to save a lot of that before it was no longer available, too.


----------



## Oddball

Si modo said:


> I've gone through a lot of them, certainly not all or even close to all.  But, none of the communications I read were out of context at all.  I read entire email conversations and the insult to the integrity of science and peer-review is unforgivable in what I have seen.
> 
> Luckily, I was able to save a lot of that before it was no longer available, too.



A searchable index: CRU Emails - Searchable


----------



## Si modo

Dude said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've gone through a lot of them, certainly not all or even close to all.  But, none of the communications I read were out of context at all.  I read entire email conversations and the insult to the integrity of science and peer-review is unforgivable in what I have seen.
> 
> Luckily, I was able to save a lot of that before it was no longer available, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A searchable index: CRU Emails - Searchable
Click to expand...

Excellent!  I was looking for something like that earlier.

I can't rep you yet, and that's a drag.


----------



## concept

Maybe this is out of context as well.  

TBR.cc: BREAKING: NZâs NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking


> The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.
> 
> The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre.



 dopey libs.


----------



## chanel

Doesn't New Zealand have a cow fart tax?  Big money in flatulent livestock.  Of course, they would fudge the results.  I bet there are a lot of disappointed folks in the EPA now wondering if their plans for a new "gas tax" will go up in smoke.


----------



## Ame®icano

MaggieMae said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. *As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill,* and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the *new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears*, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, *Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore*, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
Click to expand...


Your argument would be OK, if any of the "lengthy pieces" were about anything what you mentioned. 

Btw, what Obama accomplished with his trip to Asia?


----------



## Ame®icano

Zander said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions?  You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
Click to expand...


She usually post the comment before she reads...


----------



## JW Frogen

chanel said:


> Doesn't New Zealand have a cow fart tax? .



New Zealand taxes everything. It was founded by missionarires.

Except it no longer taxes Maoris, it exports them to Australia.


----------



## JW Frogen

Australia being founded by convicts, we have no problem with that.


----------



## Ame®icano

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subpoenas? For WHAT? You gonna sue, sweetheart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress and UK Parliament both are looking into now. Really should keep up, sweetie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congress knows? Imagine that. Here I thought NOBODY knew except the right-wing blogosphere. At least that was the OP analysis.
Click to expand...


Read!!!

US Senate Minority Report


.


----------



## chanel

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Annie

It won't die:

Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices



> Climategate: This story won't die
> By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
> Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
> But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
> 
> Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.



The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.

Another:

www.detnews.com | Printer-friendly article page



> November 26, 2009	'Climategate' puts warming in question | detnews.com | The Detroit News
> 'Climategate' puts warming in question
> 
> NOLAN FINLEY
> 
> President Barack Obama is about to stride off to Copenhagen, where he'll sign away any hope that America can return to sustained prosperity.
> 
> The president promises next month's international palaver on climate change will be marked by aggressive action to combat global warming and a firm commitment by the United States to shoulder its share of the responsibility.
> 
> Translation: Obama will pledge the United States to curbing its appetite for energy, and thus its economic growth, will make reducing emissions a higher priority than creating new jobs and will agree to transfer $1.6 trillion of our wealth to China, India and the other booming developing economies.
> 
> And it may be based on doctored numbers.
> 
> The so-called Climategate scandal hasn't hit the front pages of American newspapers yet and may never. But it ought to at least raise the skepticism level of a public that has been panicked into believing the sky is falling, or the polar caps are melting, because of manmade global warming...



and if you missed this one, don't:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of &#8216;Anthropogenic Global Warming&#8217;? &#8211; Telegraph Blogs



> ...When you read some of those files  including 1079 emails and 72 documents  you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be the greatest in modern science. These alleged emails  supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory  suggest:
> 
> Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
> 
> ...
> 
> But perhaps the most damaging revelations   the scientific equivalent of the Telegraphs MPs expenses scandal  are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
> Here are a few tasters.
> 
> Manipulation of evidence:
> 
> 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 from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.​
> Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
> 
> 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.​
> Suppression of evidence:
> 
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. Hes not in at the moment  minor family crisis.
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont have his new email address.
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.​
> Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
> 
> Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Ill be tempted to beat
> the crap out of him. Very tempted.​
> Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
> 
> Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K backI think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to contain the putative MWP, even if we dont yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.​
> And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
> 
> This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardWhat do others think?
> I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !​
> Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September  I wrote the story up here as How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie -  CRUs researchers were exposed as having cherry-picked data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.  CRU was also the organisation which  in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community  spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because  CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC....


----------



## California Girl

Annie said:


> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die
> By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
> Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
> But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
> 
> Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
Click to expand...


The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.


----------



## Annie

California Girl said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die
> By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
> Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
> But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
> 
> Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
Click to expand...


We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?


----------



## California Girl

Annie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
Click to expand...


There is a golden opportunity for any media outlet brave enough to tackle this one. I wonder, to be honest, if there are journalists around these days who would do what those two did.


----------



## Contumacious

*The airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimize scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless.

Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster*


----------



## Emma

Dude said:


> I've sen those opinions in print too, Emma.
> 
> Problem is that there are precious few facts to back up that opinion-based "journalism".
> 
> And don't tell me that the author of that piece has gone through all 250+ gigs of documents in this dump, because _*nobody*_ has.



'Course not. That's the problem, and what the person I quoted was getting at. You can't take an email or two (or even a hundred) out of over 4000 documents and 13 years of conversations and know what the hell is going on. Even if you read it all, unless you're a climate scientist, it's all going to be Greek to you anyway. And certainly cherry-picking phrases out of context isn't going to mean a thing. 

And God help us... please don't let Congress start "investigating". The earth WILL be a desolate rock by the time they get through with it.


----------



## Emma

California Girl said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die
> By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
> Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
> But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
> 
> Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
Click to expand...

But what is there to 'cover'? Like Dude said, NO one has read all the documents and put them into context, or even tried to understand and follow the conversations going on. Certainly no one with enough science background to understand what was being said has done so.


----------



## CurveLight

NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo

Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute

Hacked global warming e-mails â what&#8217;s new? | csmonitor.com

Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times

Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com


----------



## Annie

CurveLight said:


> NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute
> 
> Hacked global warming e-mails â whats new? | csmonitor.com
> 
> Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com



To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.


----------



## The T

chanel said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded


 
I laugh everytime I see this vid!


----------



## saveliberty

I don't have to be a scientist to question why global warming studies have to be coded.  On teh onehand they want us to buy global warming, yet the information regarding it's existence must be coded?  Gee, somebody saw the temps spiking on my uncoded email.  Oh no, my research is confirmed and another person knows.  Please.

Global warming is nothing but a hypothesis at this point.  Any hypothesis should be actively challenged and debated within the scientific community.  Hiding information looks liek you ahve someting to hide, makes research more costly (unshared data) and delays a confirmation of the hypothesis.  For something that is going to end life as we know it, you'd think scientitsts would be a bit mre cooperative.  On the other hand, if it is just a hoax, then keeping things quiet while you suck millions of research dollars form governments make complete sense.

Coded messages, manipulated data and attempting to supress differing opinions is junk science pure and simple.


----------



## Maple

MaggieMae said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
Click to expand...


Intelligent people watch the lame stream media???? I guess that we can conclude that the number of intelligent people are diminishing, because the people have switched to Fox. You must be one of the few intelligent people remaining, and one of the people who still watches the INTELLIGENT Lame stream media.

What did Obama ACCOMPLISH on his Asian trip?? I somehow missed that. Care to share??


----------



## edthecynic

Dude said:


> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_
> 
> 
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
Click to expand...

Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???

POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context. 
I predict you won't!!!!!!


----------



## Annie

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_
> 
> 
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
Click to expand...


You go find the whole 'context.' Played this game enough with Ravi and others. Dude has repeatedly provided the link to the site with all the emails, a searchable database.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_
> 
> 
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
Click to expand...


After reading this, all I can say is for a cynic you are awfully gullible about global warming.


----------



## saveliberty

California Girl said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die
> By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
> Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
> But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
> 
> Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
Click to expand...


The White House LIKES them with their pants down.  Saves time and skips the kissing part.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die
> By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
> 
> CBS News Correspondent Declan McCullough provides an excellent summary of where things stand and the significance of the revelations. George Monbiot, a U.K. climate-change activist, admits that it's "no use pretending that this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging."
> Congress may investigate. East Anglia acknowledges that it's systems were hacked, but hasn't yet confirmed the e-mails' authenticity. The scandal already has its own Wikipedia page. For journalists, the question of whether to delve into this would seem obvious. You already have a very big breaking story. Maybe it will ultimately support the claims of those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, maybe it won't.
> But right now, we have enough info to conclude there's probable cause to believe people at the Climate Research Unit fiddled with the data and discussed destroying e-mails to thwart a freedom-of-information requests. One e-mail talked about how to "hide the decline," the phrase that's become a rallying cry for AGW skeptics. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com is all over this one: Just keep scrolling.
> 
> Submitted by mcclanahan on November 25, 2009 - 11:50am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
Click to expand...


We've been discovering that for the last couple of years.


----------



## edthecynic

Annie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You go find the whole 'context.' Played this game enough with Ravi and others. Dude has repeatedly provided the link to the site with all the emails, a searchable database.
Click to expand...

Just as I predicted!!! That didn't take long. A dodge rather than the email.

If it was so easy to search that database, you would have posted the email IF you had nothing to hide. But that database is just a bunch of numbers for each email. So post the number of that particular email. No excuses this time.


----------



## Annie

edthecynic said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go find the whole 'context.' Played this game enough with Ravi and others. Dude has repeatedly provided the link to the site with all the emails, a searchable database.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as I predicted!!! That didn't take long. A dodge rather than the email.
> 
> If it was so easy to search that database, you would have posted the email IF you had nothing to hide. But that database is just a bunch of numbers for each email. So post the number of that particular email. No excuses this time.
Click to expand...


Again, with the 'do what I want or lose credibility.' I do not underestimate your ability to find information. Sure I might do it more quickly, without bias, but you CAN do it.


----------



## edthecynic

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading this, all I can say is for a cynic you are awfully gullible about global warming.
Click to expand...

If I was gullible you would have posted the whole email proving the context was "skeptics" and not 2 specific papers.


----------



## Ravi

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_
> 
> 
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? *Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???*
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
Click to expand...

 That's exactly what the email shows and it is exactly why Dud won't post it.


----------



## Maple

Annie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute
> 
> Hacked global warming e-mails â whats new? | csmonitor.com
> 
> Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
Click to expand...



Thanks Annie for the links. I loved this one from the Washington Post. 

Mr. Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context." 

In one of the stolen e-mails, Mr. Trenberth is quoted as saying, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't." 

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Mr. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies - in particular improved recording of rising sea-surface temperatures. 

In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Mr. Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Mr. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do." 

Mr. Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate-change skeptics. 



The libs are going to be fighting this tooth and nail, they are already in " attack mode," they have bought into this fraud for years now and it has blown up in their faces. Let's put Al Gore on trial, if we can find him while he is traveling around the world on his PRIVATE JET making millions of dollars perpetrating a fraud on the world.


----------



## edthecynic

Annie said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go find the whole 'context.' Played this game enough with Ravi and others. Dude has repeatedly provided the link to the site with all the emails, a searchable database.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as I predicted!!! That didn't take long. A dodge rather than the email.
> 
> If it was so easy to search that database, you would have posted the email IF you had nothing to hide. But that database is just a bunch of numbers for each email. So post the number of that particular email. No excuses this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, with the 'do what I want or lose credibility.' I do not underestimate your ability to find information. Sure I might do it more quickly, without bias, but you CAN do it.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who posted the un-sourced quote with ADDED words. It is the burden of the poster or his supporters to supply the full email. You CON$ pull this crap on me when I post LimpBoy's quotes, and I don't add words to LimpBoy's quotes, and I post links to his transcripts when asked. You CON$ never accept "look them up yourself" from me, so why should I accept it from you. 

Obviously you know the quote was not about "SKEPTICS" in general as the ADDED words imply, so you won't post the whole email.
Thank you.


----------



## saveliberty

edthecynic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading this, all I can say is for a cynic you are awfully gullible about global warming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If I was gullible you would have posted the whole email proving the context was "skeptics" and not 2 specific papers*.
Click to expand...


That is one of the more absurd if, then statements I have read in while.  If you were gullible, I would post an email.  

I simply said you are being awfully gullible for someone that considers himself a cynic.  A cynic would do his own google search and review documents and studies.  Then present his conclusions.  You just want to believe for some reason.


----------



## Intense

saveliberty said:


> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.



GE has too much invested. Don't expect anything there.


----------



## Annie

Intense said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GE has too much invested. Don't expect anything there.
Click to expand...


GE and Al Gore, not too mention all those 'alternative fuels':

Why 'climategate' won't stop greens | Lorrie Goldstein | Columnists | Comment | Toronto Sun



> Comment Columnists / Lorrie Goldstein
> Why 'climategate' won't stop greens
> By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
> Last Updated: 26th November 2009, 8:22am
> 
> If you're wondering how the robot-like march of the world's politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed "climategate," it's because *Big Government, Big Business and Big Green* don't give a s*** about "the science."
> 
> They never have.
> 
> What "climategate" suggests is many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.
> 
> Now they and their media shills -- who sneered that all who questioned their phony "consensus" were despicable "deniers," the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust -- are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.
> 
> So they desperately try to portray it as the routine "messy" business of science, lamely insisting, "nothing to see here folks, move along."
> 
> Before the Internet -- which has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of so-called "wise elites" -- they might have gotten away with it.
> 
> But not now, as knowledgeable climate bloggers are advancing the story and forcing the co-opted mainstream media to cover a scandal most would rather ignore...


----------



## CurveLight

Annie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute
> 
> Hacked global warming e-mails â&#8364;&#8220; what&#8217;s new? | csmonitor.com
> 
> Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
Click to expand...



You don't have any idea what my position is on GW yet you have to speak as if you got a new shiny walmart crystal ball.  Get your money back.


----------



## CurveLight

Maple said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute
> 
> Hacked global warming e-mails â&#8364;&#8220; what&#8217;s new? | csmonitor.com
> 
> Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Annie for the links. I loved this one from the Washington Post.
> 
> Mr. Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."
> 
> In one of the stolen e-mails, Mr. Trenberth is quoted as saying, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
> 
> He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Mr. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies - in particular improved recording of rising sea-surface temperatures.
> 
> In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Mr. Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Mr. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."
> 
> Mr. Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate-change skeptics.
> 
> 
> 
> The libs are going to be fighting this tooth and nail, they are already in " attack mode," they have bought into this fraud for years now and it has blown up in their faces. Let's put Al Gore on trial, if we can find him while he is traveling around the world on his PRIVATE JET making millions of dollars perpetrating a fraud on the world.
Click to expand...



Annie didn't post the links.  I did.


----------



## Oddball

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*" [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"*_
> 
> 
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Tell ya what, genius....How 'bout you read through the e-mails and give us all the "true" meaning, instead of falling back in the oft-parroted "out of context" chestnut without providing that context?

We all have time...This story isn't going anywhere.


----------



## MaggieMae

Intense said:


> What is the tax on a 50 cent light bulb as opposed to a $10.00 light bulb filled with carcinogens???



Who has $10.00 lightbulbs in their home? Floodlights, maybe. Are you talking about the spiral energy savers with a trace amount of mercury that will only escape if you smash it to the floor? What are the odds of that anyway?

At least four years ago, possibly longer, I replaced every lightbulb in my home (a quick mental count, that's about ten) with the spiral ones and have yet to have one burn out. The only problem I've encountered is that some lamps don't accommodate the size. And oh yes, I paid $.99 each for them at Ace Hardware, which still runs that special once a month.


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol i love how all the libs on this thread only say things about how whacky us conservatives are and can't say anything about the topic at hand and how fucked up this situation is.
> 
> 
> 
> _*iDENIER!*_
Click to expand...


What's fucked up about it? So scientists disagree on global warming. Scientists still disagree on what happened to cause the dinasaurs to die off too. No big deal. But you hacks are intent on making it a political football.

Since we (and they) DON'T have 100% proof of all the scientific factors involved in the Earth's temperature fluctuations, my only argument has consistently been _why not _reduce MAN'S contribution as much as we can? Would that be so difficult? Recycle. Buy the damned energy saving lightbulbs. Take your old computer to a place where they'll use the parts instead of tossing it into your dumpster and having it wind up in a landfill. Too much effort?


----------



## MaggieMae

California Girl said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't FOX the only one reporting on the Van Jones too? How'd that work out?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you say _ousted? Thrown under the BUS? A new SPEEDBUMP for Obama? SURE...I knew ya could! _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had his designer label suit dry cleaned, but sadly, the tire marks remain.
Click to expand...


And if he hadn't resigned or asked to leave? Why we'd never hear the end of it, would we...


----------



## MaggieMae

The T said:


> Yeah...this thread does say FOX NEWS doesn't it? OK...(FAUX NEWS) for you steaming piles of Liberalism/Statism)...
> 
> Did you guys catch Ed Begley Jr. Yesterday on FOX (FAUX for you LIBZ)?
> 
> LOL...Caught like a RAT in a trap...
> 
> *LINK*
> 
> *One of the biggest scandals of the millenium...like a deer in the proverbial headlights...LOL!*
> 
> **I* Think he's PISSED he fell for it too...and doesn't want to ADMIT IT...*
> 
> **NOTICE* He says "PEER REVIEWED STUDIES*...but what IF ED baby? That some of the PEERS were LOCKED OUT on purpose as the E-Mails suggest??*
> 
> *LOL!*



Jeezus, did you wet yourself over your glee?


----------



## MaggieMae

saveliberty said:


> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.



"Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."

You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."
> *
> You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't, was a BBC blogger.


----------



## slackjawed

MaggieMae said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."
> 
> You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.
Click to expand...


climategate was coined by the bbc blogger who was the first to report on the theft of the emails.
personally i prefer manbearpiggate, as i stated several times


----------



## Oddball

edthecynic said:


> I am not the one who posted the un-sourced quote with ADDED words. It is the burden of the poster or his supporters to supply the full email. You CON$ pull this crap on me when I post LimpBoy's quotes, and I don't add words to LimpBoy's quotes, and I post links to his transcripts when asked. You CON$ never accept "look them up yourself" from me, so why should I accept it from you.
> 
> Obviously you know the quote was not about "SKEPTICS" in general as the ADDED words imply, so you won't post the whole email.
> Thank you.


OK..It wasn't to keep the skeptics out, per se, but to keep out contravening evidence....I stand corrected.

You want context, here's your context, lemming boy:



> In one email, under the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL," LINK
> Phil Jones of East Anglia writes to Mann: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
> 
> In another LINK, Mann--discussing a journal that has published a paper by skeptical scientists, puts forward a plan for such a redefinition:



'You've Taken the Words Out of My Mouth' - WSJ.com

All the unzipped e-mails are indexed on a searchable database HERE

You no longer have any excuse for being a blind follower.


----------



## CurveLight

Some quick observations.  I'm betting a good number of people who cheer this have not called for the arrest and imprisonment of those responsible for breaking the laws of hacking and releasing private info.  I'm also guessing a good portion were upset when Wilson helped expose the yellow cake fraud and said he was full of shit.  Then came along Drumheller who really blew the WMD shit to pieces.  How many who are happy about this thanked those guys for exposing the fraud of invading iraq?  Al gore is a fucking shit bag one peanut rung above dubya.....we all know that.  But let's compare the whining of tv coverage on this compared to the virtual silence of the terrorist attack on a church in Tenn in July 08'.  How many of the same people bitched about fox cnn cbs etc. on how little coverage was given?  

GW has been blown way way out of proportion.  No different than iraq being a wmd threat.  But many children who discuss politics today are so fucking selfish they get caught up in the silly left v right playground that they can't see 5 feet in front of them from the dust kicked up by the stomping of whiners.  

The persons responsible for the leaked emails should be found and charged.  There should be a Commission set up to analyze the contents of the leaked info and any scientist found to be lobbing the political ball around should have any and all grants immediately revoked and if any of their submitted papers have had influence on legislation or policies they should be criminally charged for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.  The only other observation is.....holy shit.......this should not be the Golden Chalice of being against GW pressures.  Just like Iraq, if you know what you are talking about then "leaked" anything is just an extra side dish.  This just helps show consistency by a certain group.  They are equally ill informed whether it is an issue they support, like Iraq, or an issue they are against, like GW.


----------



## MaggieMae

Ravi said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, what NPR is doing is the exception - hopefully that will change.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  You obviously never listen to NPR or you wouldn't make such a false statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were correct. They did a thoughtful, non-hysterical piece on it tonight. Sadly, they sounded so objective that I've no doubt they will be considered as part of the world wide conspiracy by the rightwingnuts.
> 
> Stolen E-Mails Raise Questions On Climate Research : NPR
Click to expand...


And this reported on CNN last night:
_
MALVEAUX: President Obama will go to Copenhagen next month for a major climate change summit. That word today coming from the White House and it comes as Congress is still divided over new climate change legislation. Meanwhile, the global warming controversy, that is heating up as well, after hackers have made public some of the sensitive e-mails. Our CNN's Brooke Baldwin has the story. 

Brooke, tell us what this is about, the center of this controversy over the e-mails. 

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Suzanne, how about the timing of all of this. Yes, we are talking about hundreds of e-mails and documents spanning just about a decade here among prominent climate scientists and they have been hacked fanning really debate over whether some scientists my have exaggerated their case for manmade climate change. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)



BALDWIN: The consensus that the climate is changing, that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant factor goes way beyond the pop culture sensation of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" and his appearance on last week's episode of "30 Rock" on NBC. 
...
BALDWIN: So when a reputable climate research institute has its computer server hacked and hundreds of its private e-mails made public, the news gets around fast, especially from groups that don't believe the global warming consensus. *One e-mail attributed to the research center's director had this cryptic excerpt referring to the, quote, trick of adding in the real temps to each series to hide the decline in temperature. Because there's very little context in that e-mail and the others, it's hard to know what they will all add up to.* A climate research unit in question posted a message calling this e- mail hack job mischievous and saying it is helping the police to confirm. Senator James Inhofe for many years has portrayed this data showing the warming trend as a hoax and sees the e-mails as evidence. 

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: I'm pleased by the vast and growing number of scientists, politicians, reporters, all over the world who are publicly rejecting climate alarmism, alarmism. This is those who want to scare people into some kind of action, you know. The water is going to rise up. The world is coming to an end. 

BALDWIN: But the White House energy czar points to the 2,500 climate scientists all around the world who agree the climate is warming and that these e-mails aren't changing that. As for the American public, according to a "Washington Post"/ABC News poll out this week, *the number of Americans who believe global warming is happening is down from 80% to 72% from last year, down but still a large majority.* 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We really do have a global warming. The polar bears are getting in trouble and the glaciers are melting. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do think that we tend to blow things a little out of proportion, but I do think we need to be concerned. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it is over hyped. I think some of it is attributed to man but not all of it. 

BALDWIN: That same "Washington Post"/ABC News poll shows since 2006 the increase in climate skepticism is driven largely by a shift within the Republican Party and independents. There was also a dip among Democrats but small. *Still, a majority of respondents support a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions. *

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Now back to those hacked e-mails and the documents. We also want to point out that it suggests some scientists pressured journals not to publishing work of those who questioned whether the earth is in fact warming but, again, *here, all of this coming out weeks as you mentioned Suzanne ahead of Copenhagen's climate summit where President Obama will in fact be attending*, and today the White House announced that the president has prepared, speaking of those caps, to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels. That deadline for 2020, and by 83% by 2050, and you know this will ultimately be in line with targets laid out in a bill passed by the House earlier this year -- Suzanne? 

MALVEAUX: Yes. OK, thank you. _


----------



## MaggieMae

Zoom-boing said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...this thread does say FOX NEWS doesn't it? OK...(FAUX NEWS) for you steaming piles of Liberalism/Statism)...
> 
> Did you guys catch Ed Begley Jr. Yesterday on FOX (FAUX for you LIBZ)?
> 
> LOL...Caught like a RAT in a trap...
> 
> *LINK*
> 
> *One of the biggest scandals of the millenium...like a deer in the proverbial headlights...LOL!*
> 
> **I* Think he's PISSED he fell for it too...and doesn't want to ADMIT IT...*
> 
> **NOTICE* He says "PEER REVIEWED STUDIES*...but what IF ED baby? That some of the PEERS were LOCKED OUT on purpose as the E-Mails suggest??*
> 
> *LOL!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed Begely is a sarcastic, neurotic, awkward, thoughtless and insensitive human being.  Oh wait, that was Victor Erlich, the character he played on _St. Elsewhere_.  I see he drew on personal traits for his act-ing.
> 
> How come no one is in here crying about Eddie's shouting down the host . . . er, doing 'an O'Reilly'?  Dang must be that there isn't an 'R' next to his name.  He's sucked down every drop of the man-made global warming koolaid . . . and licked the glass to boot.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I missed it. A shout-down by a liberal FOX guest is a rarity. They usually don't get the chance.


----------



## MaggieMae

asaratis said:


> Were it not for the music, I would never listen to NPR...bunch of liberal sleaze balls, speaking softly, as if that adds to their credibility.



I guess the constant shrieking of the right wing noise machine is more credible.


----------



## Oddball

Ahhh...We're all standing by the old standby "out of context" dodge, without providing the context.

This whole thing is getting more and more like Watergate every day.


----------



## CurveLight

slackjawed said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."
> 
> You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> climategate was coined by the bbc blogger who was the first to report on the theft of the emails.
> personally i prefer manbearpiggate, as i stated several times
Click to expand...



I can't be the only one sick to death of the whole "-gate" cliche.  Infinite potential in the human mind....but enter the world of politics and 90% is voluntarily forfeited.


----------



## MaggieMae

Charles_Main said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New York Times refuses to publish any of the actual emails
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again lol.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...tml?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hacked email climate&st=cse
> 
> In the first sentence of the first paragraph, they link to the emails. Nice try, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL and Internet link is not the same as publishing them in their printed paper.
> 
> You better believe if these were military secrets that hurt our interests they would be posting them, but since it does not fit their agenda for everyone to see these emails. They make excuses.
> 
> Its hilarious, if these were some secrets about enhanced interrogation or something you guys would be screaming at the Times for not posting them.
> 
> Liberal Hippocrates never cease to amaze me.
> 
> Trillions and trillions of dollars are being or are going to be spent By nations around the earth. Whole ways of life are being asked to be changed. All based largely on the work of this small group of scientists. Their work, especially in relation to the 2000 Year Temp Record and the So called Hockey stick graph. forms the very back bone of the entire argument. It is only prudent we should learn as much about this as we can.
> 
> It appears to me they are and were at the very least doctoring things to look worse than they are, if not covering up that they were dead wrong and despite rising CO2 Levels the earth simply is not warming like they thought. Which only proves there are way more factors involved than Humans, and they clearly do not know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to any long term predictions.
> 
> It is not surprising to me, It is these same people who keep harping on how much ice has melted in the Northern Hemisphere and almost always fail to mention nearly as much ice has been gained in the southern hemisphere.
> 
> See its that whole the earth has cycles thing biting them in the ass. lol.
Click to expand...


I agree that there's something cyclical going on, but I continue to maintain that man is also _contributing_ to the cycle. How can we NOT be? With billions of automobiles, thousands of factories, etc., spewing shit into the atmosphere, AND the sheer number of people all using electronic or mechanical gadgets, combined would logically seem to at least speed up the process.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol i love how all the libs on this thread only say things about how whacky us conservatives are and can't say anything about the topic at hand and how fucked up this situation is.
> 
> 
> 
> _*iDENIER!*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's fucked up about it? So scientists disagree on global warming. Scientists still disagree on what happened to cause the dinasaurs to die off too. No big deal. But you hacks are intent on making it a political football.
> 
> *Since we (and they) DON'T have 100% proof of all the scientific factors involved in the Earth's temperature fluctuations, my only argument has consistently been why not reduce MAN'S contribution as much as we can? Would that be so difficult? Recycle. Buy the damned energy saving lightbulbs. Take your old computer to a place where they'll use the parts instead of tossing it into your dumpster and having it wind up in a landfill. Too much effort?*
Click to expand...


I've been saying the same for years and practice such, even though I really hate the lightbulbs. 

The disagreement is whether or not expensive 'fixes' are warranted. The whole problems with messing with 'peer reviewed' sites is that they were trying to say the science was 'settled' when that certainly isn't the case, as you mentioned above.


----------



## Oddball

CurveLight said:


> I can't be the only one sick to death of the whole "-gate" cliche.  Infinite potential in the human mind....but enter the world of politics and 90% is voluntarily forfeited.


You're not the only one....But in this case, the parallels between this scandal and Watergate are so numerous that the suffix does actually have some validity.


----------



## Annie

CurveLight said:


> Some quick observations.  I'm betting a good number of people who cheer this have not called for the arrest and imprisonment of those responsible for breaking the laws of hacking and releasing private info.  I'm also guessing a good portion were upset when Wilson helped expose the yellow cake fraud and said he was full of shit.  Then came along Drumheller who really blew the WMD shit to pieces.  How many who are happy about this thanked those guys for exposing the fraud of invading iraq?  Al gore is a fucking shit bag one peanut rung above dubya.....we all know that.  But let's compare the whining of tv coverage on this compared to the virtual silence of the terrorist attack on a church in Tenn in July 08'.  How many of the same people bitched about fox cnn cbs etc. on how little coverage was given?
> 
> GW has been blown way way out of proportion.  No different than iraq being a wmd threat.  But many children who discuss politics today are so fucking selfish they get caught up in the silly left v right playground that they can't see 5 feet in front of them from the dust kicked up by the stomping of whiners.
> 
> The persons responsible for the leaked emails should be found and charged.  There should be a Commission set up to analyze the contents of the leaked info and any scientist found to be lobbing the political ball around should have any and all grants immediately revoked and if any of their submitted papers have had influence on legislation or policies they should be criminally charged for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.  The only other observation is.....holy shit.......this should not be the Golden Chalice of being against GW pressures.  Just like Iraq, if you know what you are talking about then "leaked" anything is just an extra side dish.  This just helps show consistency by a certain group.  They are equally ill informed whether it is an issue they support, like Iraq, or an issue they are against, like GW.



Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.


----------



## IanC

it would be pretty hard to invent a context for this stuff.

I am very disappointed that a whole section of the scientific community sold out for research money and public and govt approval. science is supposed to follow the facts, not just decide in advance what the answer is and then carve up the data to make it fit the hypothesis


----------



## MaggieMae

chanel said:


> Doesn't New Zealand have a cow fart tax?  Big money in flatulent livestock.  Of course, they would fudge the results.  I bet there are a lot of disappointed folks in the EPA now wondering if their plans for a new "gas tax" will go up in smoke.



If cow farts had been a primary cause of emissions causing global warming, one would think it would have begun long before now, back when dairy farming and cattle ranches were in their prime. But I realize it's the source of amusement among you, so carry on. 
[Chuckle...]


----------



## MaggieMae

Ame®icano;1752725 said:
			
		

> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. *As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill,* and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the *new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears*, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, *Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore*, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument would be OK, if any of the "lengthy pieces" were about anything what you mentioned.
> 
> Btw, what Obama accomplished with his trip to Asia?
Click to expand...


A goodwill mission among our biggest creditors, for one thing. Duh...


----------



## Oddball

Annie said:


> Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.


Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.

I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".


----------



## MaggieMae

Ame®icano;1752726 said:
			
		

> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails *(the text of which I still haven't seen)* which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read them? lol...Yet you are already jumping to conclusions?  You should look at them, read them, understand what they mean. Then you can cry for a while after you realize that you've been duped by a scientific hoax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She usually post the comment before she reads...
Click to expand...


I challenge you to prove that statement. I have no intention of reading thousands of e-mails full of scientific gobbledygook. If you intend to attack me, at least be prepared to backup what you say. Next?


----------



## MaggieMae

Ame®icano;1752729 said:
			
		

> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress and UK Parliament both are looking into now. Really should keep up, sweetie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress knows? Imagine that. Here I thought NOBODY knew except the right-wing blogosphere. At least that was the OP analysis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read!!!
> 
> US Senate Minority Report
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well I should have known that the Griping Old Party would have immediately glommed onto this story within 24 hours. My bad.


----------



## Zoom-boing

MaggieMae said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't New Zealand have a cow fart tax?  Big money in flatulent livestock.  Of course, they would fudge the results.  I bet there are a lot of disappointed folks in the EPA now wondering if their plans for a new "gas tax" will go up in smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If cow farts had been a primary cause of emissions causing global warming, one would think it would have begun long before now, back when dairy farming and cattle ranches were in their prime. But I realize it's the source of amusement among you, so carry on.
> [Chuckle...]
Click to expand...




> However, if the EPA were given the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, it would also mean the government agency has the ability to regulate methane gas  which is primarily emitted from livestock. Sensenbrenner called this the cow fart tax.
> 
> However, methane gas is much more effective in keeping warmth in the atmosphere than CO2, but has a much shorter half-life, Sensenbrenner explained. To show you how ridiculous this is getting, *the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.*
> 
> The Wisconsin congressman didnt have a technological solution for livestock greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> I dont know if were supposed to develop the technology to strap a catalytic converter on the back of a cow, Sensenbrenner quipped.
> 
> *Earlier this year, the Farm Bureau told the Business & Media Institute such a tax was plausible according to the EPAs Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act*. However, Sensenbrenner speculated that such a tax could result in dairy products and beef disappearing from the shelves in supermarkets, as a British study he cited had warned.



Congressman Warns of 'Cow Fart' Tax Causing Beef and Dairy to 'Disappear' from Supermarkets


----------



## Annie

Dude said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
Click to expand...


----------



## MaggieMae

chanel said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded



Shucks, I thought that was Glenn Beck in his Halloween costume pointing at another one of his famous "charts" that only he can figure out.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't die:
> 
> Climategate: This story won't die | Midwest Voices
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM is going to be forced to decide whether to get ahead of this or not. The major newspapers have a problem in lack of investigative journalists. If they don't get moving, the New Media has the resources to deal with the 'code' which seems to be where proof will be found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
Click to expand...


So now the righties are eager to hear what MSM has to say? Imagine that. I thought you thought they were all liars, except for FOX, Washington Times, Drudge, etc.


----------



## MaggieMae

California Girl said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a golden opportunity for any media outlet brave enough to tackle this one. I wonder, to be honest, if there are journalists around these days who would do what those two did.
Click to expand...


So are you trying to tell me that if, say, Vanity Fair (which DOES have experienced, intelligent *investigative* reporters) did an extensive piece and, oops, discovered that these emails really did nothing to prove global warming is a hoax, that you would abide by such a report? Puleeze, don't make me laugh. If it had been a "liberal" who scientifically proved the earth wasn't flat, you wouldn't believe it.


----------



## Annie

Dude said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
Click to expand...


This comes 'close' on the "I'm not a crook..." But moreso to the repetitious 'context':

CRUâ&#8364;&#8482;s climate â&#8364;&#732;tricksâ&#8364;&#8482; - FP Comment



> CRU&#8217;s climate &#8216;tricks&#8217;
> Posted: November 23, 2009, 8:19 PM by NP Editor
> Climate changeIs this how &#8216;tip-top&#8217; scientists talk?
> By Myron Ebell
> 
> In the case of the apparently scandalous leaked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in England, it&#8217;s all a matter of getting the context right. That&#8217;s what Prof. Michael E Mann, the fabricator of the celebrated hockey stick graph, told the Washington Post recently &#8212; that skeptics &#8220;are taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious.&#8221;
> 
> Let&#8217;s look at the context of a couple of these e-mails. Here&#8217;s one that looks pretty bad until you understand the context:
> From: Ben Santer To: P.Jones, Oct 9, 2009. Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record: &#8220;Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I&#8217;ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.&#8221;​
> Now let&#8217;s put that in context. Dr. Ben Santer is a researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change&#8217;s Second Assessment Report (1995), he was the lead author of a chapter and cleverly cut off the early and later years of a dataset, so that the resulting graph would show that global temperatures were only going in one direction in recent years&#8211;rapidly upwards. In fact, temperatures were just as high in earlier years and had declined in the most recent years, but that data at both ends was cleverly deleted. This made the graph much easier to understand correctly. So the first bit of context is that Dr. Santer is an outstanding scientist of fine and upstanding character.
> 
> ...
> Financial Post
> _Myron Ebell is the director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute._


----------



## MaggieMae

Contumacious said:


> *The airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimize scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless.
> 
> Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster*



Huh? That discussion, and the film, occurred over two years ago. Is it being re-run?


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the righties are eager to hear what MSM has to say? Imagine that. I thought you thought they were all liars, except for FOX, Washington Times, Drudge, etc.
Click to expand...


See that's the problem with you Maggie. You fail to hear the laments over the decline of the media. Some of us cringe to think what we would not know if not for new media, since the old cannot be trusted. I'd love for some of them to prove their worth once again. Which is why I said that I was surprised by some of the bloggers on MSM.


----------



## Si modo

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The MSM has been caught with it's pants down too many times. If they don't cover it properly, they will confirm to everyone that they have no scruples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now the righties are eager to hear what MSM has to say? Imagine that. I thought you thought they were all liars, except for FOX, Washington Times, Drudge, etc.
Click to expand...

Then I guess you were wrong yet again.


----------



## Oddball

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the righties are eager to hear what MSM has to say? Imagine that. I thought you thought they were all liars, except for FOX, Washington Times, Drudge, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that's the problem with you Maggie. You fail to hear the laments over the decline of the media. Some of us cringe to think what we would not know if not for new media, since the old cannot be trusted. I'd love for some of them to prove their worth once again. Which is why I said that I was surprised by some of the bloggers on MSM.
Click to expand...

That's her less-than-honest way of "keeping it honest" 

If only the lamestream media were on this like they were with Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.


----------



## MaggieMae

saveliberty said:


> I don't have to be a scientist to question why global warming studies have to be coded.  On teh onehand they want us to buy global warming, yet the information regarding it's existence must be coded?  Gee, somebody saw the temps spiking on my uncoded email.  Oh no, my research is confirmed and another person knows.  Please.
> 
> Global warming is nothing but a hypothesis at this point.  Any hypothesis should be actively challenged and debated within the scientific community.  Hiding information looks liek you ahve someting to hide, makes research more costly (unshared data) and delays a confirmation of the hypothesis.  For something that is going to end life as we know it, you'd think scientitsts would be a bit mre cooperative.  On the other hand, if it is just a hoax, then keeping things quiet while you suck millions of research dollars form governments make complete sense.
> 
> Coded messages, manipulated data and attempting to supress differing opinions is junk science pure and simple.



Although I appreciate your choice of words, hypothesis rather than hoax, I believe there most certainly IS a consensus that _something_ is happening. The Big Question is how much MAN contributes to the problem. 

Annual weather phenomena really don't count, because one area of the globe can suffer a year of drought only to be flooded in the same time period the next year, or temperatures dramatically fluctuate from year to year. But there is definitely something to a warming PATTERN when all kinds of simple examples are right in our faces. When I was a child in the 50's, not to have it bitter cold and with at least some snow on the ground on Thanksgiving Day was unheard of. I live in northern New England, and today, November 26, 2009, the temperature outside is 60 degrees, and sleeping flies and hornets are lazily buzzing around wondering why their winter was so short.


----------



## MaggieMae

Maple said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent people watch the lame stream media???? I guess that we can conclude that the number of intelligent people are diminishing, because the people have switched to Fox. You must be one of the few intelligent people remaining, and one of the people who still watches the INTELLIGENT Lame stream media.
> 
> What did Obama ACCOMPLISH on his Asian trip?? I somehow missed that. Care to share??
Click to expand...


The number of people who, collectively, watch news programs OTHER THAN Fox and MSNBC is three times as many. If you want a dose of right-wing BS, you watch Fox; if you want a dose of left-wing BS, you watch MSNBC. But the rest of us usually go elsewhere for NEWS, then to one of those channels to listen to the talking heads.


----------



## MaggieMae

saveliberty said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After reading this, all I can say is for a cynic you are awfully gullible about global warming.
Click to expand...


Odd then that poll after poll show that over 70% believe it's happening. Are we all stupid and only you are believable? I think not.


----------



## MaggieMae

edthecynic said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go find the whole 'context.' Played this game enough with Ravi and others. Dude has repeatedly provided the link to the site with all the emails, a searchable database.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as I predicted!!! That didn't take long. A dodge rather than the email.
> 
> If it was so easy to search that database, you would have posted the email IF you had nothing to hide. But that database is just a bunch of numbers for each email. So post the number of that particular email. No excuses this time.
Click to expand...


Actually, Dud's quote is one that's been quoted in the news, making it easy.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to be a scientist to question why global warming studies have to be coded.  On teh onehand they want us to buy global warming, yet the information regarding it's existence must be coded?  Gee, somebody saw the temps spiking on my uncoded email.  Oh no, my research is confirmed and another person knows.  Please.
> 
> Global warming is nothing but a hypothesis at this point.  Any hypothesis should be actively challenged and debated within the scientific community.  Hiding information looks liek you ahve someting to hide, makes research more costly (unshared data) and delays a confirmation of the hypothesis.  For something that is going to end life as we know it, you'd think scientitsts would be a bit mre cooperative.  On the other hand, if it is just a hoax, then keeping things quiet while you suck millions of research dollars form governments make complete sense.
> 
> Coded messages, manipulated data and attempting to supress differing opinions is junk science pure and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I appreciate your choice of words, hypothesis rather than hoax, I believe there most certainly IS a consensus that _something_ is happening. The Big Question is how much MAN contributes to the problem.
> 
> Annual weather phenomena really don't count, because one area of the globe can suffer a year of drought only to be flooded in the same time period the next year, or temperatures dramatically fluctuate from year to year. But there is definitely something to a warming PATTERN when all kinds of simple examples are right in our faces. When I was a child in the 50's, not to have it bitter cold and with at least some snow on the ground on Thanksgiving Day was unheard of. I live in northern New England, and today, November 26, 2009, the temperature outside is 60 degrees, and sleeping flies and hornets are lazily buzzing around wondering why their winter was so short.
Click to expand...


I don't know, but right now Bangor is in 40's and snow expected Saturday.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading this, all I can say is for a cynic you are awfully gullible about global warming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd then that poll after poll show that over 70% believe it's happening. Are we all stupid and only you are believable? I think not.
Click to expand...


 The same scientists have been providing the data for well over 25 years. Don't you get any of this?


----------



## MaggieMae

Maple said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute
> 
> Hacked global warming e-mails â whats new? | csmonitor.com
> 
> Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Annie for the links. I loved this one from the Washington Post.
> 
> Mr. Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."
> 
> In one of the stolen e-mails, Mr. Trenberth is quoted as saying, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
> 
> He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Mr. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies - in particular improved recording of rising sea-surface temperatures.
> 
> In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Mr. Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Mr. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."
> 
> Mr. Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate-change skeptics.
> 
> 
> 
> The libs are going to be fighting this tooth and nail, they are already in " attack mode," they have bought into this fraud for years now and it has blown up in their faces. Let's put Al Gore on trial, if we can find him while he is traveling around the world on his PRIVATE JET making millions of dollars perpetrating a fraud on the world.
Click to expand...


Ironically, those particular comments hardly *support* your case.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. Short of researching the transcripts of every cable news program going back to last Friday, I'd have to say that your "list" above is pretty picky. As I recall, last Friday the top news stories were that the Senate was set for final debate the following day on their health care bill, and most networks that INTELLIGENT people watch were focusing on that. Also of importance in the news was the new guidelines for mamograms and pap smears, widely discussed because widely controversial; and oh yes, Sarah Palin was about to embark on her book tour, Obama had just returned from his Asia trip and his accomplishments were at the fore, and of course continued apprehension over Afghanistan.
> 
> So forgive me if I happened to miss reporting on a bunch of e-mails (the text of which I still haven't seen) which _just happen _to coincide with the upcoming summit on global warming.  And which just happens to be a MONUMENTAL issue for the far right to glom onto as an issue winner in order to get them back in power. Surprise surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people watch the lame stream media???? I guess that we can conclude that the number of intelligent people are diminishing, because the people have switched to Fox. You must be one of the few intelligent people remaining, and one of the people who still watches the INTELLIGENT Lame stream media.
> 
> What did Obama ACCOMPLISH on his Asian trip?? I somehow missed that. Care to share??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number of people who, collectively, watch news programs OTHER THAN Fox and MSNBC is three times as many. If you want a dose of right-wing BS, you watch Fox; if you want a dose of left-wing BS, you watch MSNBC. But the rest of us usually go elsewhere for NEWS, then to one of those channels to listen to the talking heads.
Click to expand...


You are the one that incorrectly stated FOX coined 'climategate.' You're the one that took my defense of at least part of MSM reporting on it, alas not in print or on air, but we'll say 'give it time...'

You're trying to change the discussion. It's not going to happen. Just as Ed isn't going to make us spin wheels for his enjoyment.


----------



## MaggieMae

CurveLight said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo
> 
> Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute
> 
> Hacked global warming e-mails â whats new? | csmonitor.com
> 
> Hacked e-mails show experts wary of global warming - Washington Times
> 
> Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have any idea what my position is on GW yet you have to speak as if you got a new shiny walmart crystal ball.  Get your money back.
Click to expand...


You're a quick learner! There's usually no point in trying to be Mr. Nice Guy on this board.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Annie for the links. I loved this one from the Washington Post.
> 
> Mr. Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."
> 
> In one of the stolen e-mails, Mr. Trenberth is quoted as saying, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
> 
> He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Mr. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies - in particular improved recording of rising sea-surface temperatures.
> 
> In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Mr. Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Mr. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."
> 
> Mr. Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate-change skeptics.
> 
> 
> 
> The libs are going to be fighting this tooth and nail, they are already in " attack mode," they have bought into this fraud for years now and it has blown up in their faces. Let's put Al Gore on trial, if we can find him while he is traveling around the world on his PRIVATE JET making millions of dollars perpetrating a fraud on the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironically, those particular comments hardly *support* your case.
Click to expand...


They weren't 'my quotes'...


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight.  Not word one about Climategate.  Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."
> *
> You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, was a BBC blogger.
Click to expand...


What? The term "czar" meaning a political appointee goes all the way back to Nixon. There's nothing new about the label, but to listen to the Foxes, Obama's 'communist regime' is full of them, aptly named.


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."
> *
> You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, was a BBC blogger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? The term "czar" meaning a political appointee goes all the way back to Nixon. There's nothing new about the label, but to listen to the Foxes, Obama's 'communist regime' is full of them, aptly named.
Click to expand...


 It's not about 'czars' either. But of course you're wrong on that too:



> ...In the postwar era, the rise of the "czar" has accompanied the expanding role of the executive office in promoting policy initiatives; the term tends to be used when presidents create special new posts for the individuals charged with pushing those initiatives through. Nixon succumbed to czarmania, appointing the first "drug czar," Jerome Jaffe, in 1971 (long before William Bennett took the mantle in 1988). But it was the title of "energy czar" that got the most attention during those days of OPEC embargoes and gas rationing....


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Climategate" was coined by FOX. How many "gates" does it have in its repertoire now? Must be right up there with calling anyone in the Obama administration a "czar."
> *
> You know, it could be that the other networks are behaving more grown up about this pending issue since, well, the climate change _summit _is pending and we'll probably know more F.A.C.T.S at that time. Sounds reasonable to me, but then that's just me. I'll wait to see how this whole issue resolves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, was a BBC blogger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? The term "czar" meaning a political appointee goes all the way back to Nixon. There's nothing new about the label, but to listen to the Foxes, Obama's 'communist regime' is full of them, aptly named.
Click to expand...

LOL! I goofed on that one, glad I didn't get too nasty. Note to self: Must. Read. More. Slowly. 

Still not about czars...


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*iDENIER!*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's fucked up about it? So scientists disagree on global warming. Scientists still disagree on what happened to cause the dinasaurs to die off too. No big deal. But you hacks are intent on making it a political football.
> 
> *Since we (and they) DON'T have 100% proof of all the scientific factors involved in the Earth's temperature fluctuations, my only argument has consistently been why not reduce MAN'S contribution as much as we can? Would that be so difficult? Recycle. Buy the damned energy saving lightbulbs. Take your old computer to a place where they'll use the parts instead of tossing it into your dumpster and having it wind up in a landfill. Too much effort?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been saying the same for years and practice such, even though I really hate the lightbulbs.
> 
> The disagreement is whether or not expensive 'fixes' are warranted. The whole problems with messing with 'peer reviewed' sites is that they were trying to say the science was 'settled' when that certainly isn't the case, as you mentioned above.
Click to expand...


There was an excellent article on this written by Sharon Begley (Newsweek's science ed) several months ago, where she pointed out that even with all the mechanisms in place, it's too late to stop the cycle now, and the only thing we can hope for is human awareness to do what we can not to make it worse. I don't have time to find it now--turkey's done--company in an hour, but it really puts the entire debate to bed.


----------



## MaggieMae

IanC said:


> it would be pretty hard to invent a context for this stuff.
> 
> I am very disappointed that a whole section of the scientific community sold out for research money and public and govt approval. science is supposed to follow the facts, not just decide in advance what the answer is and then carve up the data to make it fit the hypothesis



I don't believe for one second that happened. I believe there were over 2,000 scientists from all over the globe who formed a consensus opinion, and if they were all in it just for the money, there would have been whistle-blowers long before now. Now you guys are just creating conspiracy theories. Can we PLEASE wait until all the facts are in?


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fucked up about it? So scientists disagree on global warming. Scientists still disagree on what happened to cause the dinasaurs to die off too. No big deal. But you hacks are intent on making it a political football.
> 
> *Since we (and they) DON'T have 100% proof of all the scientific factors involved in the Earth's temperature fluctuations, my only argument has consistently been why not reduce MAN'S contribution as much as we can? Would that be so difficult? Recycle. Buy the damned energy saving lightbulbs. Take your old computer to a place where they'll use the parts instead of tossing it into your dumpster and having it wind up in a landfill. Too much effort?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been saying the same for years and practice such, even though I really hate the lightbulbs.
> 
> The disagreement is whether or not expensive 'fixes' are warranted. The whole problems with messing with 'peer reviewed' sites is that they were trying to say the science was 'settled' when that certainly isn't the case, as you mentioned above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was an excellent article on this written by Sharon Begley (Newsweek's science ed) several months ago, where she pointed out that even with all the mechanisms in place, it's too late to stop the cycle now, and the only thing we can hope for is human awareness to do what we can not to make it worse. I don't have time to find it now--turkey's done--company in an hour, but it really puts the entire debate to bed.
Click to expand...


No it dosn't. Her premise is wrong. There's no settled science that such a cycle has begun, much less if there is one that man caused. That and not who coined what terms is what the topic is about.


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
Click to expand...


It's hardly a "scandal" dopey. Geez--you're usually not THAT stupid.


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hardly a "scandal" dopey. Geez--you're usually not THAT stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right.


----------



## MaggieMae

Zoom-boing said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't New Zealand have a cow fart tax?  Big money in flatulent livestock.  Of course, they would fudge the results.  I bet there are a lot of disappointed folks in the EPA now wondering if their plans for a new "gas tax" will go up in smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If cow farts had been a primary cause of emissions causing global warming, one would think it would have begun long before now, back when dairy farming and cattle ranches were in their prime. But I realize it's the source of amusement among you, so carry on.
> [Chuckle...]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if the EPA were given the authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, it would also mean the government agency has the ability to regulate methane gas  which is primarily emitted from livestock. Sensenbrenner called this the cow fart tax.
> 
> However, methane gas is much more effective in keeping warmth in the atmosphere than CO2, but has a much shorter half-life, Sensenbrenner explained. To show you how ridiculous this is getting, *the EPA has got the proposed regulation imposing a cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.*
> 
> The Wisconsin congressman didnt have a technological solution for livestock greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> I dont know if were supposed to develop the technology to strap a catalytic converter on the back of a cow, Sensenbrenner quipped.
> 
> *Earlier this year, the Farm Bureau told the Business & Media Institute such a tax was plausible according to the EPAs Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act*. However, Sensenbrenner speculated that such a tax could result in dairy products and beef disappearing from the shelves in supermarkets, as a British study he cited had warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congressman Warns of 'Cow Fart' Tax Causing Beef and Dairy to 'Disappear' from Supermarkets
Click to expand...


Hilarious. Of course of "the Congressman" should also know that there are dairy farms across the country that have turned methane gas emitted from cow manure into electricity. So where's the trade off? A special farting barn maybe?


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. CBS and ABC and WaPo all have 'bloggers' that have written about it, with critical eyes. Now the question, do they release these reporters, that are low paid just above internees? Sort of like Woodward and Bernstein in the 70's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now the righties are eager to hear what MSM has to say? Imagine that. I thought you thought they were all liars, except for FOX, Washington Times, Drudge, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that's the problem with you Maggie. You fail to hear the laments over the decline of the media. Some of us cringe to think what we would not know if not for new media, since the old cannot be trusted. I'd love for some of them to prove their worth once again. Which is why I said that I was surprised by some of the bloggers on MSM.
Click to expand...


I'm aware of the bias of MSM, but I'm also able to spot such bias when I see it. I do not believe everything I read as gospel. That said, for the most part, the bigger publications don't engage in _intentional_ lying either by headine, omission or innuendo except on their opinion pages.


----------



## Zander

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've said that whoever grabbed those should be prosecuted, though likely an insider. With that said, will likely qualify to being called a whistle blower, much like Daniel Ellsberg.
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hardly a "scandal" dopey. Geez--you're usually not THAT stupid.
Click to expand...


It's not a scandal.... and  Bubba did not have sexual relations with that woman. Not a scandal. Not a scandal. Not a scandal....


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now the righties are eager to hear what MSM has to say? Imagine that. I thought you thought they were all liars, except for FOX, Washington Times, Drudge, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that's the problem with you Maggie. You fail to hear the laments over the decline of the media. Some of us cringe to think what we would not know if not for new media, since the old cannot be trusted. I'd love for some of them to prove their worth once again. Which is why I said that I was surprised by some of the bloggers on MSM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's her less-than-honest way of "keeping it honest"
> 
> If only the lamestream media were on this like they were with Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.
Click to expand...


Where do you see even the slightest hint of comparison? Watergate was about corruption within the ranks of the Oval Office and the Pentagon. The issue of global warming would be hard-pressed to become "scandalous." Are you just trying to convince your lesser-enlightened brethen who post here and believe anything you say?


----------



## Oddball

Zander said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hardly a "scandal" dopey. Geez--you're usually not THAT stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a scandal.... and  Bubba did not have sexual relations with that woman. Not a scandal. Not a scandal. Not a scandal....
Click to expand...


----------



## IanC

MaggieMae said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> it would be pretty hard to invent a context for this stuff.
> 
> I am very disappointed that a whole section of the scientific community sold out for research money and public and govt approval. science is supposed to follow the facts, not just decide in advance what the answer is and then carve up the data to make it fit the hypothesis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for one second that happened. I believe there were over 2,000 scientists from all over the globe who formed a consensus opinion, and if they were all in it just for the money, there would have been whistle-blowers long before now. Now you guys are just creating conspiracy theories. Can we PLEASE wait until all the facts are in?
Click to expand...



ordinarily I would agree with that sentiment but in this case there has been a lot of propaganda and control of peer review. this new information needs to be publicised so that the ordinary person on the street can make a more informed decision before getting on board with programs that will cost billions of dollars and many thousands of jobs.


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> See that's the problem with you Maggie. You fail to hear the laments over the decline of the media. Some of us cringe to think what we would not know if not for new media, since the old cannot be trusted. I'd love for some of them to prove their worth once again. Which is why I said that I was surprised by some of the bloggers on MSM.
> 
> 
> 
> That's her less-than-honest way of "keeping it honest"
> 
> If only the lamestream media were on this like they were with Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you see even the slightest hint of comparison? Watergate was about corruption within the ranks of the Oval Office and the Pentagon. The issue of global warming would be hard-pressed to become "scandalous." Are you just trying to convince your lesser-enlightened brethen who post here and believe anything you say?
Click to expand...

Wow...You have to be trying to miss all the parallels. I guess that 'splains it.

BTW...I was alive and aware when the Watergate and Pentagon Papers scandals broke, and Nixon's toadies were saying _*exactly*_ the same kinds of things you and the rest of the scandal...how you say..._*deniers*_ are saying today.

Out of context....Wait until all the facts are in....Blame and defame the leakers...Claim that the "other side is out to get us"...The song remains the same.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people watch the lame stream media???? I guess that we can conclude that the number of intelligent people are diminishing, because the people have switched to Fox. You must be one of the few intelligent people remaining, and one of the people who still watches the INTELLIGENT Lame stream media.
> 
> What did Obama ACCOMPLISH on his Asian trip?? I somehow missed that. Care to share??:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The number of people who, collectively, watch news programs OTHER THAN Fox and MSNBC is three times as many. If you want a dose of right-wing BS, you watch Fox; if you want a dose of left-wing BS, you watch MSNBC. But the rest of us usually go elsewhere for NEWS, then to one of those channels to listen to the talking heads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that incorrectly stated FOX coined 'climategate.' You're the one that took my defense of at least part of MSM reporting on it, alas not in print or on air, but we'll say 'give it time...'
> 
> You're trying to change the discussion. It's not going to happen. Just as Ed isn't going to make us spin wheels for his enjoyment.
Click to expand...


I was responding to Maple's comment, which was the one that changed the discussion. Pay attention.

Also, it's interesting that YOU seemed to want to "change the subject" by injecting Obama's Asian trip into the conversation. Again, pay attention before you hit "submit reply."


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number of people who, collectively, watch news programs OTHER THAN Fox and MSNBC is three times as many. If you want a dose of right-wing BS, you watch Fox; if you want a dose of left-wing BS, you watch MSNBC. But the rest of us usually go elsewhere for NEWS, then to one of those channels to listen to the talking heads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that incorrectly stated FOX coined 'climategate.' You're the one that took my defense of at least part of MSM reporting on it, alas not in print or on air, but we'll say 'give it time...'
> 
> You're trying to change the discussion. It's not going to happen. Just as Ed isn't going to make us spin wheels for his enjoyment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was responding to Maple's comment, which was the one that changed the discussion. Pay attention.
> 
> Also, it's interesting that YOU seemed to want to "change the subject" by injecting Obama's Asian trip into the conversation. Again, pay attention before you hit "submit reply."
Click to expand...

I DID NOT inject Asia trip. You follow along more closely.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Annie for the links. I loved this one from the Washington Post.
> 
> Mr. Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."
> 
> In one of the stolen e-mails, Mr. Trenberth is quoted as saying, "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't."
> 
> He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Mr. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies - in particular improved recording of rising sea-surface temperatures.
> 
> In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Mr. Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Mr. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."
> 
> Mr. Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate-change skeptics.
> 
> 
> 
> The libs are going to be fighting this tooth and nail, they are already in " attack mode," they have bought into this fraud for years now and it has blown up in their faces. Let's put Al Gore on trial, if we can find him while he is traveling around the world on his PRIVATE JET making millions of dollars perpetrating a fraud on the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, those particular comments hardly *support* your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't 'my quotes'...
Click to expand...


Collectively "your." Picky picky picky.


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, was a BBC blogger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? The term "czar" meaning a political appointee goes all the way back to Nixon. There's nothing new about the label, but to listen to the Foxes, Obama's 'communist regime' is full of them, aptly named.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not about 'czars' either. But of course you're wrong on that too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...In the postwar era, the rise of the "czar" has accompanied the expanding role of the executive office in promoting policy initiatives; the term tends to be used when presidents create special new posts for the individuals charged with pushing those initiatives through. Nixon succumbed to czarmania, appointing the first "drug czar," Jerome Jaffe, in 1971 (long before William Bennett took the mantle in 1988). But it was the title of "energy czar" that got the most attention during those days of OPEC embargoes and gas rationing....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Uh, by your quoted material, didn't you just agree with me? Are you enjoying trying to goad me? Sorry, Annie, but my turkey needs attention more than you.


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another too-delicious-to-be-true parallel with the Watergate scandal.
> 
> I can't wait for Michael Mann to come out and declare "I'm not a crook".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hardly a "scandal" dopey. Geez--you're usually not THAT stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, right.
Click to expand...


Friends from your AA group?


----------



## Annie

MaggieMae said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? The term "czar" meaning a political appointee goes all the way back to Nixon. There's nothing new about the label, but to listen to the Foxes, Obama's 'communist regime' is full of them, aptly named.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about 'czars' either. But of course you're wrong on that too:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...In the postwar era, the rise of the "czar" has accompanied the expanding role of the executive office in promoting policy initiatives; the term tends to be used when presidents create special new posts for the individuals charged with pushing those initiatives through. Nixon succumbed to czarmania, appointing the first "drug czar," Jerome Jaffe, in 1971 (long before William Bennett took the mantle in 1988). But it was the title of "energy czar" that got the most attention during those days of OPEC embargoes and gas rationing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, by your quoted material, didn't you just agree with me? Are you enjoying trying to goad me? Sorry, Annie, but my turkey needs attention more than you.
Click to expand...


Yes, I responded, but you knew that. Enjoy turkey. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media...v-news-outlets-except-fox-14.html#post1753407


----------



## concept

It's a farce that our media is ignoring this.


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> Friends from your AA group?


Nothing can compare with "keeping it honest"!


----------



## MaggieMae

Dude said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hardly a "scandal" dopey. Geez--you're usually not THAT stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a scandal.... and  Bubba did not have sexual relations with that woman. Not a scandal. Not a scandal. Not a scandal....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That's your best post EVER, Dud. Finally admitting you have cotton in your ears. And tunnel vision as well? 

BUT WAIT!  I see...that was meant for ME!! Okay, does that mean I've finally left you speechless? I mean can't you dig back into your historical archives and find some obscure article written by somebody no one's ever heard of and post that as proof positive that YOUR OPINIONS are the only accurate ones here?


----------



## MaggieMae

Annie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one that incorrectly stated FOX coined 'climategate.' You're the one that took my defense of at least part of MSM reporting on it, alas not in print or on air, but we'll say 'give it time...'
> 
> You're trying to change the discussion. It's not going to happen. Just as Ed isn't going to make us spin wheels for his enjoyment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding to Maple's comment, which was the one that changed the discussion. Pay attention.
> 
> Also, it's interesting that YOU seemed to want to "change the subject" by injecting Obama's Asian trip into the conversation. Again, pay attention before you hit "submit reply."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DID NOT inject Asia trip. You follow along more closely.
Click to expand...


If I'm attributing posts to you mistakenly, I apologize. There are now two people standing behind me drumming their fingers on my desk, so it's probably ME who isn't paying attention.


----------



## MaggieMae

*have a great day, everyone. *


----------



## Annie

Converging healthcare and climate change, yeah! There's our ticket. $$$$$$$


Obama to vow greenhouse emissions cuts in Denmark - Yahoo! News



> Obama to vow greenhouse emissions cuts in Denmark
> 
> By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
> Thu Nov 26, 1:11 am ET
> 
> WASHINGTON  Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. He will insist America is ready to tackle global warming despite resistance in Congress over higher costs for businesses and homeowners.
> Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. He will "put on the table" a U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent over the next decade, on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80 percent by mid-century, the White House said.
> 
> Cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth in just a decade would increase the cost of energy as electric utilities pay for capturing carbon dioxide at coal burning power plants or switch to more expensive alternatives. The price of gasoline likely would increase, and more fuel efficient automobiles  or hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity  likely would be more expensive.
> 
> ....
> And, *supporters of emission reductions say, there would be clear long-term health and environmental benefits from shifting the a clean-energy economy.* So bad data from Lancet can meet bad data from climatologists, and leave the taxpayers on at least 3 continents to pick up the costs.
> ...
> Other studies conducted by pro-industry groups have put the average household costs at $900 to more than $3,000 a year, although many of those studies do not take into account new energy conservation efforts and assume a more pessimistic view of new technology development that could bring actual consumer costs down.
> 
> But *slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.* None of the studies  either those cited by the administration or those singled out by critics  attempt to gauge a "no-action" scenario that many scientists say will have significant economic costs as well.
> ...



We're in 'good hands' now.


----------



## Oddball

MaggieMae said:


> That's your best post EVER, Dud. Finally admitting you have cotton in your ears. And tunnel vision as well?
> 
> BUT WAIT!  I see...that was meant for ME!! Okay, does that mean I've finally left you speechless? I mean can't you dig back into your historical archives and find some obscure article written by somebody no one's ever heard of and post that as proof positive that YOUR OPINIONS are the only accurate ones here?


You're really, really, _*really*_ horrible at that "keeping it honest" thingy.

Time to stop posing.


----------



## edthecynic

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the _*real*_ context of this one, edthelemming?
> 
> ~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
> 
> 
> 
> Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???
> What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
> 
> POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
> I predict you won't!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell ya what, genius....How 'bout you read through the e-mails and give us all the "true" meaning, instead of falling back in the oft-parroted "out of context" chestnut *without providing that context?*
> 
> We all have time...This story isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

But I did provide the context. They were discussing "PAPERS" not "SKEPTICS" which is the word YOU added to dishonestly CHANGE the context. 

You won't post the entire email because you KNOW that the sentence IMMEDIATELY before the quote you posted gives the context as papers and not skeptics. You prove your dishonesty is PREMEDITATED by refusing to post the whole email.


----------



## Oddball

Right....Which still doesn't change the _*substance*_ of what was being said; to keep out evidence that contravenes the warmist orthodoxy.

Now, do you have any other examples where your lame "out of context" bleating is so _*in substance*_?

P.S. I already admitted my mistake. Continuing to claim that I'm making shit up out of whole cloth, as a matter of premeditation, is pure bullshit.


----------



## edthecynic

Dude said:


> Right....Which still doesn't change the _*substance*_ of what was being said; to keep out evidence that contravenes the warmist orthodoxy.
> 
> Now, do you have any other examples where your lame "out of context" bleating is so _*in substance*_?


First of all, if your added word didn't change the substance of what was being said, you wouldn't have used the word "skeptics."

As I said, they were talking about 2 SPECIFIC hack job papers, not all contrary evidence, as you well know by again not posting the entire email and proving me wrong. Unless, of course, you never read the email and are merely mindlessly parroting someone else's dishonesty while pretending to be informed. 
Which is it, Dupe???


----------



## concept

Annie said:


> Converging healthcare and climate change, yeah! There's our ticket. $$$$$$$
> 
> 
> Obama to vow greenhouse emissions cuts in Denmark - Yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama to vow greenhouse emissions cuts in Denmark
> 
> By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
> Thu Nov 26, 1:11 am ET
> 
> WASHINGTON  Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. He will insist America is ready to tackle global warming despite resistance in Congress over higher costs for businesses and homeowners.
> Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. He will "put on the table" a U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent over the next decade, on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80 percent by mid-century, the White House said.
> 
> Cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth in just a decade would increase the cost of energy as electric utilities pay for capturing carbon dioxide at coal burning power plants or switch to more expensive alternatives. The price of gasoline likely would increase, and more fuel efficient automobiles  or hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity  likely would be more expensive.
> 
> ....
> And, *supporters of emission reductions say, there would be clear long-term health and environmental benefits from shifting the a clean-energy economy.* So bad data from Lancet can meet bad data from climatologists, and leave the taxpayers on at least 3 continents to pick up the costs.
> ...
> Other studies conducted by pro-industry groups have put the average household costs at $900 to more than $3,000 a year, although many of those studies do not take into account new energy conservation efforts and assume a more pessimistic view of new technology development that could bring actual consumer costs down.
> 
> But *slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.* None of the studies  either those cited by the administration or those singled out by critics  attempt to gauge a "no-action" scenario that many scientists say will have significant economic costs as well.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're in 'good hands' now.
Click to expand...


Yeah the Lancet.

That credible org that put out the bogus study of 650,000 Iraqis deaths because of US involvment.


----------



## Oddball

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right....Which still doesn't change the _*substance*_ of what was being said; to keep out evidence that contravenes the warmist orthodoxy.
> 
> Now, do you have any other examples where your lame "out of context" bleating is so _*in substance*_?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, if your added word didn't change the substance of what was being said, you wouldn't have used the word "skeptics."
> 
> As I said, they were talking about 2 SPECIFIC hack job papers, not all contrary evidence, as you well know by again not posting the entire email and proving me wrong. Unless, of course, you never read the email and are merely mindlessly parroting someone else's dishonesty while pretending to be informed.
> Which is it, Dupe???
Click to expand...

What was added didn't change the substance of what was said.

Keeping out papers that tend to discredit your position is no different in substance that keeping out the person, in and of themself.

You opinion of those papers as "hack jobs" gives away your rank bias in favor of the warmist orthodoxy, that has been caught with their pants down.

Now, if you care to show how any of *THESE* e-mails have been "taken out of context", have at it.


----------



## edthecynic

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right....Which still doesn't change the _*substance*_ of what was being said; to keep out evidence that contravenes the warmist orthodoxy.
> 
> Now, do you have any other examples where your lame "out of context" bleating is so _*in substance*_?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, if your added word didn't change the substance of what was being said, you wouldn't have used the word "skeptics."
> 
> As I said, they were talking about 2 SPECIFIC hack job papers, not all contrary evidence, as you well know by again not posting the entire email and proving me wrong. Unless, of course, you never read the email and are merely mindlessly parroting someone else's dishonesty while pretending to be informed.
> Which is it, Dupe???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was added didn't change the substance of what was said.
> 
> Keeping out papers that tend to discredit your position is no different in substance that keeping out the person, in and of themself.
> 
> You opinion of those papers as "hack jobs" gives away your rank bias in favor of the warmist orthodoxy, that has been caught with their pants down.
Click to expand...

The only person caught with their pants down is you!!! 
You didn't read the emails, did you? 

Here are the relevant parts of the email you perverted:

Mike,
       For your interest, *there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
    shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong.*  It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
    is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
       It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. *KC are wrong
   because
    the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
    happen with ERA-40.  ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
    this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
    are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.*

       I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
    Cheers
    Phil

Mike,

      The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
    to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
    for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
    obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
    out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
*The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
    losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
   it.
       I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.* Kevin and I will keep
   them
    out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    Cheers
    Phil


----------



## Oddball

Right...."Garbage" as defined by the people who are doing their dead-level best to rat fuck anyone and everyone who challenges the warmist moonbat orthodoxy, even if they have to change what "peer review" means.

I can read that crap for context just fine.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, if your added word didn't change the substance of what was being said, you wouldn't have used the word "skeptics."
> 
> As I said, they were talking about 2 SPECIFIC hack job papers, not all contrary evidence, as you well know by again not posting the entire email and proving me wrong. Unless, of course, you never read the email and are merely mindlessly parroting someone else's dishonesty while pretending to be informed.
> Which is it, Dupe???
> 
> 
> 
> What was added didn't change the substance of what was said.
> 
> Keeping out papers that tend to discredit your position is no different in substance that keeping out the person, in and of themself.
> 
> You opinion of those papers as "hack jobs" gives away your rank bias in favor of the warmist orthodoxy, that has been caught with their pants down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only person caught with their pants down is you!!!
> You didn't read the emails, did you?
> 
> Here are the relevant parts of the email you perverted:
> 
> Mike,
> For your interest, *there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
> shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong.*  It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
> is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
> It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. *KC are wrong
> because
> the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
> happen with ERA-40.  ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
> this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
> are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.*
> 
> I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
> Cheers
> Phil
> 
> Mike,
> 
> The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
> to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
> for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
> obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
> out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
> *The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
> losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
> it.
> I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.* Kevin and I will keep
> them
> out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
> Cheers
> Phil
Click to expand...




Dude said:


> Right...."Garbage" as defined by the people who are doing their dead-level best to rat fuck anyone and everyone who challenges the warmist moonbat orthodoxy, even if they have to change what "peer review" means.
> 
> *I can read that crap for context just fine.*


Baloney! You can't even get the context even after I help you with highlighting. The highlighted parts explain in detail what is wrong with the specific papers being discussed, which is why dishonest CON$ never post those parts. All you can do is parrot your programming.


----------



## edthecynic

Dude said:


> Now, if you care to show how any of *THESE* e-mails have been "taken out of context", have at it.


You gotta just love CON$!
You expose their sources for perverting the context of their perverted "quotes," and they just spew more perversions from the same discredited sources.

I'm not going to waste my time on all the perversions you linked to without ever reading yourself, but I will rebut the most famous one from your link:

"Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)"

Not only do they pervert the email, but also they pervert the response from Real Climate!!!!!!!

The first thing to point out is that this email refers to one diagram  not a scientific paper  which was used in the World Meteorological Organisations statement on the status of the global climate in 1999 (WMO-no.913).
 The diagram consisted of three curves showing 50-year average temperature variations for the last 1000 years. Each curve referred to a scientific paper and a key gives their details.
*Climate records consist of actual temperature records from the mid-19th century and proxy data (tree rings, coral, ice cores, etc) which go back much further. The green curve on the diagram included proxy data up to 1960 but only actual temperatures from 1961 onwards. This is what is being discussed in the email.*


Let's see what the CON$ left out of the Real Climate reply!!!

"The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and* the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.* Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. *As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 *(Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."


----------



## concept

lol what a predictable joke.

libs are so invested in creating their little utopia they are even lying to themselves now.


Hilarious!!


----------



## saveliberty

CurveLight said:


> Some quick observations.  I'm betting a good number of people who cheer this have not called for the arrest and imprisonment of those responsible for breaking the laws of hacking and releasing private info.  I'm also guessing a good portion were upset when Wilson helped expose the yellow cake fraud and said he was full of shit.  Then came along Drumheller who really blew the WMD shit to pieces.  How many who are happy about this thanked those guys for exposing the fraud of invading iraq?  Al gore is a fucking shit bag one peanut rung above dubya.....we all know that.  But let's compare the whining of tv coverage on this compared to the virtual silence of the terrorist attack on a church in Tenn in July 08'.  How many of the same people bitched about fox cnn cbs etc. on how little coverage was given?
> 
> GW has been blown way way out of proportion.  No different than iraq being a wmd threat.  But many children who discuss politics today are so fucking selfish they get caught up in the silly left v right playground that they can't see 5 feet in front of them from the dust kicked up by the stomping of whiners.
> 
> The persons responsible for the leaked emails should be found and charged.  There should be a Commission set up to analyze the contents of the leaked info and any scientist found to be lobbing the political ball around should have any and all grants immediately revoked and if any of their submitted papers have had influence on legislation or policies they should be criminally charged for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.  The only other observation is.....holy shit.......this should not be the Golden Chalice of being against GW pressures.  Just like Iraq, if you know what you are talking about then "leaked" anything is just an extra side dish.  This just helps show consistency by a certain group.  They are equally ill informed whether it is an issue they support, like Iraq, or an issue they are against, like GW.



Threre are leaks in government everyday?  No charges.  I do agree that what we do with this information is important.  That is why it would be nice if the media would nake more people aware.  The sad part here is the environment is important and being able to trust the science behind what we need to do is great.

The compact bulbs are a good example.  Sure they save electricity and last much longer.  They also discharge mercury.  An extreme hazard in your home or the landfill.


----------



## Oddball

edthecynic said:


> Baloney! You can't even get the context even after I help you with highlighting. The highlighted parts explain in detail what is wrong with the specific papers being discussed, which is why dishonest CON$ never post those parts. All you can do is parrot your programming.


First of all, I'm not a "CON$", dickweed.

Secondly, if the papers being discussed were so easily explained away, why not let them in and pick off such low hanging fruit in front of God and everyone and look like the genius you're trying to pass yourself off as, huh?

Then, there's that inconvenient little thing about "redefining peer review" that gets in the way of rationalizing away with your limp "out of context" argument.

But keep it up, I'm enjoying the contortionist act.


----------



## Ravi

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right....Which still doesn't change the _*substance*_ of what was being said; to keep out evidence that contravenes the warmist orthodoxy.
> 
> Now, do you have any other examples where your lame "out of context" bleating is so _*in substance*_?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, if your added word didn't change the substance of what was being said, you wouldn't have used the word "skeptics."
> 
> As I said, they were talking about 2 SPECIFIC hack job papers, not all contrary evidence, as you well know by again not posting the entire email and proving me wrong. Unless, of course, you never read the email and are merely mindlessly parroting someone else's dishonesty while pretending to be informed.
> Which is it, Dupe???
Click to expand...

Excellent question.


----------



## Modbert

Scientists disagreeing with one another? What is this tomfoolery!


----------



## Oddball

Dogbert said:


> Scientists disagreeing with one another? What is this tomfoolery!


Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.


----------



## Modbert

Dude said:


> Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.



Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal? 

I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.


----------



## Big Fitz

Decided today to do a little check with my family who claim to be pretty news aware.  I asked them if they heard about the scandal with the Hadley CRU emails.  None of them had heard anything about it.

Of course, they get their news from the local paper, NPR and what's on at 5 and 6pm on the networks only.  Pretty darn sad.  They were in total denial that it was true even if it DID happen which they don't believe either.  And if THAT did happen, it still didn't matter because the world is in danger of global warming.

Brain-washed.  Lather Rinse Repeat.


----------



## Annie

edthecynic said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, if your added word didn't change the substance of what was being said, you wouldn't have used the word "skeptics."
> 
> As I said, they were talking about 2 SPECIFIC hack job papers, not all contrary evidence, as you well know by again not posting the entire email and proving me wrong. Unless, of course, you never read the email and are merely mindlessly parroting someone else's dishonesty while pretending to be informed.
> Which is it, Dupe???
> 
> 
> 
> What was added didn't change the substance of what was said.
> 
> Keeping out papers that tend to discredit your position is no different in substance that keeping out the person, in and of themself.
> 
> You opinion of those papers as "hack jobs" gives away your rank bias in favor of the warmist orthodoxy, that has been caught with their pants down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only person caught with their pants down is you!!!
> You didn't read the emails, did you?
> 
> Here are the relevant parts of the email you perverted:
> 
> Mike,
> For your interest, *there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
> shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong.*  It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
> is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
> It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. *KC are wrong
> because
> the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
> happen with ERA-40.  ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
> this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
> are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.*
> 
> I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
> Cheers
> Phil
> 
> Mike,
> 
> The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
> to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
> for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
> obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
> out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
> *The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
> losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
> it.
> I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.* Kevin and I will keep
> them
> out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
> Cheers
> Phil
Click to expand...


For everyone's interest, here is the complete email, BECAUSE CONTEXT MATTERS::

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable



> From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
> Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
> 
> Mike,
> Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
> 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
> for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
> to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
> 
> I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
> that you have the pdf.
> 
> The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
> to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
> for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
> obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
> out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
> The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
> losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
> it.
> 
> *I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
> them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !*If you don't see the problem here, I feel sorry for you.
> Cheers
> Phil
> 
> Mike,
> For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 *Report coming out soon, which
> shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
> is a personal friend of Eugenia.* Yeah, that is always is a determining factor here. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
> It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
> because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US. You don't see the excuses and lack of ethics here? They are controlling 'peer review' for themselves and others. When hitting data that doesn't correlate to the models, it appears that it's the data, not the models they want to 'change.'
> 
> I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
> Cheers
> Phil
> 
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> -------



This is one of over a thousand released, none of them 'just personal' from any that I've seen. Much of it is quite incomprehensible to anyone not trained in hard science. Yet, anyone trained in scientific method is going to notice the patterns. It doesn't look good. While I would rarely be in agreement with Maggie Mae, in all seriousness, slowing down on what the governments are doing, what is being disseminated publicly is common sense. To think that this is just going to be swatted away, would just be foolish. 

On the other hand does this discredit the discussion about man's role? No. But the studies in question, which are numerous, must be tested by honest brokers.


----------



## edthecynic

Dude said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baloney! You can't even get the context even after I help you with highlighting. The highlighted parts explain in detail what is wrong with the specific papers being discussed, which is why dishonest CON$ never post those parts. All you can do is parrot your programming.
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all, I'm not a "CON$"*, dickweed.
> 
> Secondly, if the papers being discussed were so easily explained away, why not let them in and pick off such low hanging fruit in front of God and everyone and look like the genius you're trying to pass yourself off as, huh?
> 
> Then, there's that inconvenient little thing about "redefining peer review" that gets in the way of rationalizing away with your limp "out of context" argument.
> 
> But keep it up, I'm enjoying the contortionist act.
Click to expand...

You mindlessly parrot everything the CON$ say, how are you not a CON$ervative???? 

You are only "enjoying" the beating you're taking if you are a masochist!!!


----------



## Oddball

Fuck you, dickweed.

Even enviroloon journalists are now admitting that they've been hustled....It's only the cargo cultists, like you, who will flail away to your last dying breath to defend this shit...Much like Nixon's sycophants did nearly 40 years ago.


http://volokh.com/2009/11/24/monbiot-leaked-cru-docs-a-major-blow/


----------



## Big Fitz

Dude said:


> Fuck you, dickweed.
> 
> Even enviroloon journalists are now admitting that they've been hustled....It's only the cargo cultists, like you, who will flail away to your last dying breath to defend this shit...Much like Nixon's sycophants did nearly 40 years ago.
> 
> 
> http://volokh.com/2009/11/24/monbiot-leaked-cru-docs-a-major-blow/


ooh wow!  Remember to always replace your divots.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?
> 
> I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.
Click to expand...

In the scientific community, it most certainly is NOT normal.  It's poor form and shun-worthy.  It's an indication that the science is poor when the rhetoric of words is more important than the rhetoric of the science.


----------



## Annie

Dude said:


> Fuck you, dickweed.
> 
> Even enviroloon journalists are now admitting that they've been hustled....It's only the cargo cultists, like you, who will flail away to your last dying breath to defend this shit...Much like Nixon's sycophants did nearly 40 years ago.
> 
> 
> http://volokh.com/2009/11/24/monbiot-leaked-cru-docs-a-major-blow/



Looks like I'm in the camp with many of the commentaries.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> In the scientific community, it most certainly is NOT normal.  It's poor form and an indication that the science is poor when the rhetoric of words is more important than the rhetoric of the science.



In the Scientific Community, Collusion to marginalize other scientists is normal and has been for centuries. There is also the taking of credit of other scientists work and the such.

Look up the name Rosalind Franklin.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the scientific community, it most certainly is NOT normal.  It's poor form and an indication that the science is poor when the rhetoric of words is more important than the rhetoric of the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Scientific Community, Collusion to marginalize other scientists is normal and has been for centuries. ...
Click to expand...

I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know.  If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question.  It is not a normal practice.


----------



## Oddball

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?
> 
> I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.
Click to expand...

A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.

Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. _*Real*_ scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know.  If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question.  It is not a normal practice.



It is certainly a normal practice. Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. That is only one major example of what science has always been.


----------



## Modbert

Dude said:


> A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.
> 
> Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. _*Real*_ scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.



Stealing work is just as bad as trying to destroy careers. Real scientists are interested in finding the truth, however, many real scientists also realize if they want to do any work, they need those research grants. All those experiments and research isn't cheap.


----------



## Annie

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know.  If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question.  It is not a normal practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly a normal practice. Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. *That is only one major example of what science has always been.*
Click to expand...


One of anything doesn't prove anything, other than an exception that proves the rule. Actually over a 1000 emails don't prove anything, but there's more than enough smoke to guess the temperature is high.


----------



## Modbert

Annie said:


> One of anything doesn't prove anything, other than an exception that proves the rule. Actually over a 1000 emails don't prove anything, but there's more than enough smoke to guess the temperature is high.



Exception to the rule? Not at all.

Another major controversy was who had really discovered HIV. Everyone can look up the name Robert Gallo.

All I'm saying is that this sort of behavior if it does exist in this case is not uncommon. It doesn't make it anymore right. However, we shouldn't treat this as if it is anything new.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know.  If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question.  It is not a normal practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly a normal practice. ....
Click to expand...

It is not normal practice.  Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.



> ....  Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. That is only one major example of what science has always been.


It is not normal practice.  Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice.  Look up the definition of normal.


----------



## Oddball

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.
> 
> Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. _*Real*_ scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stealing work is just as bad as trying to destroy careers. Real scientists are interested in finding the truth, however, many real scientists also realize if they want to do any work, they need those research grants. All those experiments and research isn't cheap.
Click to expand...

And what of stealing under the auspices of research that turns out to be fraudulent?


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> It is not normal practice.  Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice.  Look up the definition of normal.



My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject.

What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times.

Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?


----------



## Si modo

Dude said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?
> 
> I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A good example of what I'm taking about is the steady state vs. expanding universe rivalry that was raging until the mid-1960s.
> 
> Even though the rivalry between the camps was fierce, there isn't any evidence that one side or the other set about to personally destroy the careers of members of the opposing side. _*Real*_ scientists interested in finding the truth, rather than protecting their cushy research grants, are adult enough to let the facts of science speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes.  The rhetoric of the science.

Every first year grad student is taught about the importance of the rhetoric of the science.  This is a fundamental ingrained early in those who will make a career of research in the sciences.


----------



## Modbert

Dude said:


> And what of stealing under the auspices of research that turns out to be fraudulent?



It's happened in the past. I'm not saying whether this has occurred here or not. I'm not making a judgment call on this issue especially until all the facts are known.

It's literally a war between the two it seems sometimes and it's not a battle I feel like waging. All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.

Same thing for polluting our water. Look at Japan, why are they one of the most green nations on Earth? It's because of their need to have a healthy ocean around them. If they can't catch the fish and eat them due to the polluted water, many of their population will die or will go poor.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice.  Look up the definition of normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject.  ....
Click to expand...

 Of which you clearly have none - no knowledge of what is normal practice in the scientific community.  



> ....  What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times. ....


It is beyond hubris and into just plain stupidity that one who is not even a student of the sciences thinks that he has any credibility in making any claims at all about the scientific community and the sciences.



> ....  Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?


And anyone who knows a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.

Marginalization of scientists is NOT normal practice in  the scientific community.


----------



## Annie

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice.  Look up the definition of normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject.
> 
> What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times.
> 
> Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?
Click to expand...


There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen. 

In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data. 

Robert, you are really defending that?


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.



Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.

I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.

We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.


----------



## Modbert

Annie said:


> There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen.
> 
> In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data.
> 
> Robert, you are really defending that?



You obviously missed one of my earlier posts. As for this current situation, I have made my opinion known on it. However, I would recommend waiting a bit for making a conclusion. I relearned that lesson lately as we all did with the FED guy up in those mountains who committed suicide. The same thing could very well occur here leaving some of you with a heaping of crow to eat.

What I'm saying in this case is the situation you've drawn out in summary, is nothing new in Science. It may of never had happened at this level before supposedly but it has occurred. That is what I see being denied in this thread.

Why? I don't know. Maybe because some people don't want to face the truth of science sometimes. Others just want to make this situation look more special for their outrage.

I have made my point I do believe. Whatever the conclusion, I don't support liars.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.  ....
Click to expand...

And two examples of marginalization does nothing at all to support your erroneous claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice in the scientific community.

You cannot seriously think it is adequate support for your (a freshman undergrad student who is not even a student of the sciences) claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal in the scientific community?



> .... I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. .....


You are saying that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice.  You have done NOTHING to support that claim.



> ....  I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job. ....


Which has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice in the scientific community.



> ....  We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.


Which still has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that marginalization of other scientists is normal practice in the scientific community.


----------



## Annie

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.
> 
> I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.
> 
> We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.
Click to expand...


Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.


----------



## Modbert

Si Modo, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm saying it's not uncommon in Science. If I said it was normal, then it was obviously taken a bit  out of context considering. What I'm saying is this isn't rare. At this level supposedly? Certainly rare. However, this sort of behavior in Science is nothing new.


----------



## Annie

Dogbert said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen.
> 
> In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data.
> 
> Robert, you are really defending that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously missed one of my earlier posts. As for this current situation, I have made my opinion known on it. However, I would recommend waiting a bit for making a conclusion. I relearned that lesson lately as we all did with the FED guy up in those mountains who committed suicide. The same thing could very well occur here leaving some of you with a heaping of crow to eat.
> 
> What I'm saying in this case is the situation you've drawn out in summary, is nothing new in Science. It may of never had happened at this level before supposedly but it has occurred. That is what I see being denied in this thread.
> 
> Why? I don't know. Maybe because some people don't want to face the truth of science sometimes. Others just want to make this situation look more special for their outrage.
> 
> I have made my point I do believe. Whatever the conclusion, I don't support liars.
Click to expand...


All day I've been saying the same. I am pretty certain that some are going to be gone, that never thought they would be. I think some oversight, long needed is going to happen.

Just a couple posts ago I said that the emails don't 'prove' anything, other than a lot of smoke and heat. Fire? That remains to be seen.


----------



## Si modo

Annie said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And anyone who know a thing about how science is done knows that you are now speaking of something different than marginalization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.
> 
> I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.
> 
> We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.
Click to expand...

Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.


----------



## Modbert

Annie said:


> Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.



It is your choice whether to give or not. Much of the funding comes from taxes and charitable contributions and much of it doesn't.

I'm one of those people who believe that certain diseases will never be fully cured. Cancer, AIDS, etc. Sure, we'll have lots of expensive products to keep you alive and keep it at bay, but it will never be fully cured.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si Modo, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm saying it's not uncommon in Science. If I said it was normal, then it was obviously taken a bit  out of context considering. What I'm saying is this isn't rare. At this level supposedly? Certainly rare. However, this sort of behavior in Science is nothing new.


You said it was normal and you said it several times.  It is NOT normal for scientists to marginalize other scientists and it is considered very poor form to do so.


----------



## Modbert

Annie said:


> All day I've been saying the same. I am pretty certain that some are going to be gone, that never thought they would be. I think some oversight, long needed is going to happen.
> 
> Just a couple posts ago I said that the emails don't 'prove' anything, other than a lot of smoke and heat. Fire? That remains to be seen.



Some oversight in Science will be most likely outright rejected by the Scientific Community. Maybe in some areas will be allowed, but others, certainly not.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> You said it was normal and you said it several times.  It is NOT normal for scientists to marginalize other scientists and it is considered very poor form to do so.



What I was trying to say that it wasn't this rare thing that has never occurred before like some were acting.

"Oh my god, some scientists supposedly lying or doing dishonest things to further their own stature!? What's next? Santa Claus is a Lie? "


----------



## Big Fitz

> All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.



Freeze right there.  I'm not going to let this blatant fallacy stand.

Global warming does NOT EQUAL air pollution.  
Air Pollution does NOT EQUAL Global Warming.

Air pollution deals with toxic gases and precipitates that are in the sky that cause harm to living things.  Poisons, acids... shit like that.

Global Warming, or Climate Change has nothing to do with air quality.  This is a false analogy.  CO2, Methane, Water Vapor are naturally occuring greenhouse gases.  Mankind cannot produce even enough of these naturally occurring materials to equal that of one MODERATE volcanic eruption.  We are unable to affect our environment in this manner.

Mankind has proven himself quite capable of poisoning himself.  Instances like Love Canal and PCB pollutants and the the infamous "Cuyahuga River Fire" (which was actually common back in the day) should prove this point quite effectively.  We can destroy environments through acts of carelessness such as over logging, uncontrolled mining and other destructive resource aquisition.  But these did not change the climate.  They wrecked a region, and since the climate remained the same, often the destroyed environment returned generally in the same form that had been destroyed previously.  

Look at the hills and areas around San Francisco where they used to do hydrologic mining with high pressure hoses.  The forest there is not gone except for any area that was made agricultural.

Look at Yellowstone after the forest fires.  Pretty effectively destroyed, but it came back like before, if not better without the choking underbrush.

Mankind has to get over it's damnable hubris that he can destroy the planet.  Even with nuclear weapons, we are the ones who have the most to fear, for we are the most precariously placed animal in the world in many regards.  

So let's cut the crap of trying to equate air pollution with global warming.  It's a lie and we all know it.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All day I've been saying the same. I am pretty certain that some are going to be gone, that never thought they would be. I think some oversight, long needed is going to happen.
> 
> Just a couple posts ago I said that the emails don't 'prove' anything, other than a lot of smoke and heat. Fire? That remains to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some oversight in Science will be most likely outright rejected by the Scientific Community. Maybe in some areas will be allowed, but others, certainly not.
Click to expand...

It will be rejected.  Science has depended on peer-review for oversight.

This is an insult to all of science what these clowns did.  They sold out the integrity of science.


----------



## Annie

Si modo said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.
> 
> I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.
> 
> We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not in hard sciences, but have more than a working knowledge of writing, reading, and reviewing peer reviews; along with scientific method. My first two degrees were in political science and sociology, both of which required 500 level stats. Problem with the soft sciences is that one is nearly always dealing with data collected from another source, be it census, county, or political parties. The results are dependent on the quality of the data. 

I've envied the hard sciences and their much more refined measurement tools. That's probably what frustrates me so with this.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.



You can feel to bring my age over and over if you like. However, it doesn't do much. 

You should be happy that someone my age is this involved with current events and the affairs of this country. Or would you much rather have me be an apathic person who just spends his time playing video games? Meanwhile, complaining about how naive the younger people are.


----------



## Modbert

Big Fitz said:


> Freeze right there.  I'm not going to let this blatant fallacy stand.
> 
> Global warming does NOT EQUAL air pollution.
> Air Pollution does NOT EQUAL Global Warming.
> 
> Air pollution deals with toxic gases and precipitates that are in the sky that cause harm to living things.  Poisons, acids... shit like that.
> 
> Global Warming, or Climate Change has nothing to do with air quality.  This is a false analogy.  CO2, Methane, Water Vapor are naturally occuring greenhouse gases.  Mankind cannot produce even enough of these naturally occurring materials to equal that of one MODERATE volcanic eruption.  We are unable to affect our environment in this manner.
> 
> Mankind has proven himself quite capable of poisoning himself.  Instances like Love Canal and PCB pollutants and the the infamous "Cuyahuga River Fire" (which was actually common back in the day) should prove this point quite effectively.  We can destroy environments through acts of carelessness such as over logging, uncontrolled mining and other destructive resource aquisition.  But these did not change the climate.  They wrecked a region, and since the climate remained the same, often the destroyed environment returned generally in the same form that had been destroyed previously.
> 
> Look at the hills and areas around San Francisco where they used to do hydrologic mining with high pressure hoses.  The forest there is not gone except for any area that was made agricultural.
> 
> Look at Yellowstone after the forest fires.  Pretty effectively destroyed, but it came back like before, if not better without the choking underbrush.
> 
> Mankind has to get over it's damnable hubris that he can destroy the planet.  Even with nuclear weapons, we are the ones who have the most to fear, for we are the most precariously placed animal in the world in many regards.
> 
> So let's cut the crap of trying to equate air pollution with global warming.  It's a lie and we all know it.



If you don't mind actually reading my post for a second and take a step back with all of your self-righteousness for a moment. I never equated Global Warming with Pollution. 

So you can feel free to apologize to me now.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can feel to bring my age over and over if you like. However, it doesn't do much.
> 
> You should be happy that someone my age is this involved with current events and the affairs of this country. Or would you much rather have me be an apathic person who just spends his time playing video games? Meanwhile, complaining about how naive the younger people are.
Click to expand...

Your age is irrelevant.  The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any authority about what is normal in the scientific community IS relevant.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> Your age is irrelevant.  The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any authority about what is normal in the scientific community IS relevant.



You say my age is irrelevant but you're invoking it constantly such as you just did.

You have brought my age several times. And while I honestly don't care, especially since I would like to know where exactly you were at my age and place as a Freshman Undergrad Student.

I can speak with authority based on upon what I know, and dishonesty in the Scientific Community is nothing new. That is my main point I've been trying to get across. I'm not saying it's the norm for all scientists, merely that it has occurred in a major fashion in the past more than a few times.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your age is irrelevant.  The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any authority about what is normal in the scientific community IS relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say my age is irrelevant but you're invoking it constantly such as you just did.  ....
Click to expand...

Your age is irrelevant.  The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any credibility on the sciences and the scientific community IS relevant.

YOU are the one who has mentioned  your age here.  I have mentioned your ignorance.  And you are obviously ignorant of the fact that there are freshman undergrad students of all ages.  You're being defensive about your age.



> ....  You have brought my age several times. And while I honestly don't care, especially since I would like to know where exactly you were at my age and place as a Freshman Undergrad Student.  ....


First of all, only YOU have mentioned you age in this thread (and I have responded that it is irrelevant).

Secondly, the fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any credibility about the sciences and the scientific community IS relevant.



> ....  I can speak with authority based on upon what I know, and dishonesty in the Scientific Community is nothing new. ....


And no one has said it is new.

I have challenged your idiotic notion that it is normal, as you said several times.



> ....  That is my main point I've been trying to get across. ....


By saying it is normal?  Hardly.



> ....  I'm not saying it's the norm for all scientists, ...


YES, you did - several times.  Over and over you've said it.



> ....  merely that it has occurred in a major fashion in the past more than a few times.


Which is NOT what you said when you said, several times, that it is normal.


----------



## Modbert

Si Modo, what you're doing is quite stupid to be honest.

You're harping on my misuse of the word of normal where the word I should of used throughout is uncommon as I did several times. If you want to act like a 5 year old still, please continue on.

If you would like to discuss this like two people, no matter whether they are a undergrad college student or out of college, let me know.


----------



## edthecynic

Annie said:


> Mike,
> For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 *Report coming out soon, which
> shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
> is a personal friend of Eugenia.* Yeah, that is always is a determining factor here. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
> It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal.* KC are wrong
> because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.* You don't see the excuses and lack of ethics here? They are controlling 'peer review' for themselves and others. *When hitting data that doesn't correlate to the models, it appears that it's the data, not the models they want to 'change.' *


What I see is you see only what you WANT to see and not what is there.

Nowhere does that email say "they want to change the data"!!!!!!!!
That is purely your own imaginative invention!!!!

NCEP and ERA-40 are two forecasting models and the email is saying that the ERA-40 forecast is CONSISTENT with the REAL surface temps data and the lower atmosphere data and NCEP is not. There is absolutely nothing that even remotely implies they want to CHANGE the real surface temps data or lower atmosphere data!!!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz

Dogbert said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freeze right there.  I'm not going to let this blatant fallacy stand.
> 
> Global warming does NOT EQUAL air pollution.
> Air Pollution does NOT EQUAL Global Warming.
> 
> Air pollution deals with toxic gases and precipitates that are in the sky that cause harm to living things.  Poisons, acids... shit like that.
> 
> Global Warming, or Climate Change has nothing to do with air quality.  This is a false analogy.  CO2, Methane, Water Vapor are naturally occuring greenhouse gases.  Mankind cannot produce even enough of these naturally occurring materials to equal that of one MODERATE volcanic eruption.  We are unable to affect our environment in this manner.
> 
> Mankind has proven himself quite capable of poisoning himself.  Instances like Love Canal and PCB pollutants and the the infamous "Cuyahuga River Fire" (which was actually common back in the day) should prove this point quite effectively.  We can destroy environments through acts of carelessness such as over logging, uncontrolled mining and other destructive resource aquisition.  But these did not change the climate.  They wrecked a region, and since the climate remained the same, often the destroyed environment returned generally in the same form that had been destroyed previously.
> 
> Look at the hills and areas around San Francisco where they used to do hydrologic mining with high pressure hoses.  The forest there is not gone except for any area that was made agricultural.
> 
> Look at Yellowstone after the forest fires.  Pretty effectively destroyed, but it came back like before, if not better without the choking underbrush.
> 
> Mankind has to get over it's damnable hubris that he can destroy the planet.  Even with nuclear weapons, we are the ones who have the most to fear, for we are the most precariously placed animal in the world in many regards.
> 
> So let's cut the crap of trying to equate air pollution with global warming.  It's a lie and we all know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't mind actually reading my post for a second and take a step back with all of your self-righteousness for a moment. I never equated Global Warming with Pollution.
> 
> So you can feel free to apologize to me now.
Click to expand...

If you are not equating GW with pollution why do you make this statement?



> All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.



Looks to me like you are saying Global Warming whether true or not is connected to pollution.  I've heard this association made many times before with the "If you don't want to stop global warming, you want to poison us all" crowd.  My issue is that you are perpetuating this myth with your statement perpetuates, be it deliberate or out of ignorance to the impression you were giving.

I've nothing to apologize for.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Si Modo, what you're doing is quite stupid to be honest.
> 
> You're harping on my misuse of the word of normal where the word I should of used throughout is uncommon as I did several times. If you want to act like a 5 year old still, please continue on.
> 
> If you would like to discuss this like two people, no matter whether they are a undergrad college student or out of college, let me know.


What is dishonest, or simply some odd character trait, is your lack of any ability to admit that you were dead wrong when you said *several times* that dishonesty (and marginalization) is normal practice in the scientific community.  Suck it up, be a grown-up (NOW you can whine about my bringing up your age) and stop trying to weasel out of your attempt to try to get your clearly erroneous claim of what is normal in the scientific community across.  You were wrong - flat wrong.  Not even third-graders repeatedly 'misuse' the word normal.  But if that is a more desirable impression for you to own than to be a big boy, fine.  I'll drop it.


----------



## Modbert

Big Fitz said:


> If you are not equating GW with pollution why do you make this statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks to me like you are saying Global Warming whether true or not is connected to pollution.  I've heard this association made many times before with the "If you don't want to stop global warming, you want to poison us all" crowd.  My issue is that you are perpetuating this myth with your statement perpetuates, be it deliberate or out of ignorance to the impression you were giving.
> 
> I've nothing to apologize for.
Click to expand...


Why did I say it? Because Pollution in large amounts is bad. And I still see people who deny that the fact that the amount of pollution we make has no affect on air quality, etc. I just had a discussion with someone IRL on this topic. Whether Global Warming exists or not, our actions when it concerns the environment have an effect.

Note the keyword in your explaining, "looks". Well guess what, I know exactly what I'm saying. Just because you jumped to shove your self-righteousness down my throat, doesn't give you a right to jump to conclusions. You should of asked me what I was saying first. I do the same, I ask people to clarify before I jump to conclusions.

You do have something to apologize for, question is whether you'll be a man or not and step up to do so.

P.S: If you weren't new here, you'd realize after I reply to someone, I speak in general terms often.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> What is dishonest, or simply some odd character trait, is your lack of any ability to admit that you were dead wrong when you said *several times* that dishonesty (and marginalization) is normal practice in the scientific community.  Suck it up, be a grown-up (NOW you can whine about my bringing up your age) and stop trying to weasel out of your attempt to try to get your clearly erroneous claim of what is normal in the scientific community across.  You were wrong - flat wrong.  Not even third-graders repeatedly 'misuse' the word normal.  But if that is a more desirable impression for you to own than to be a big boy, fine.  I'll drop it.



The problem here is that you mistook my argument and therefore mistook what I said. Notice that I'm not having this problem with Annie? Notice that me and her can speak like two reasonable adults.

I'm not sure what is the problem with some of you in this thread, maybe it's your "outrage" shining through. All I know is that it's making some of you act very irrational.

I have already admitted I should of used the word uncommon instead of normal. I would say you need to act like a grown up, because you are the one acting like a five year old in this thread.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Because Pollution in large amounts is bad.



So you're standing by your belief that global warming and pollution are related?



> Whether Global Warming exists or not, our actions when it concerns the environment have an effect.



Maybe you need to re-read MY post.  I agreed that mankind CAN poison his environment.



> Well guess what, I know exactly what I'm saying.



Possibly you do.  But I have doubts as to your knowledge of how what you say appears to others.  Hence the issue as a whole.



> You should of asked me what I was saying first. I do the same, I ask people to clarify before I jump to conclusions.



Meh... we'll see if that holds true.  I've not read enough of your posts to verify that yet.



> You do have something to apologize for, question is whether you'll be a man or not and step up to do so.



Look, I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.  Your denigration of my manhood is an ineffectual debate tactic as well.  I don't jump off of bridges because everyone else is too.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?*
> 
> I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, *that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries*.
Click to expand...




Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the scientific community, it most certainly is NOT normal.  It's poor form and an indication that the science is poor when the rhetoric of words is more important than the rhetoric of the science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Scientific Community, *Collusion to marginalize other scientists is normal and has been for centuries.* There is also the taking of credit of other scientists work and the such.
> 
> Look up the name Rosalind Franklin.
Click to expand...




Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know.  If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question.  It is not a normal practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is certainly a normal practice.* Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. That is only one major example of *what science has always been*.
Click to expand...

[Emphasis added]













Dogbert said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is dishonest, or simply some odd character trait, is your lack of any ability to admit that you were dead wrong when you said *several times* that dishonesty (and marginalization) is normal practice in the scientific community.  Suck it up, be a grown-up (NOW you can whine about my bringing up your age) and stop trying to weasel out of your attempt to try to get your clearly erroneous claim of what is normal in the scientific community across.  You were wrong - flat wrong.  Not even third-graders repeatedly 'misuse' the word normal.  But if that is a more desirable impression for you to own than to be a big boy, fine.  I'll drop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you mistook my argument and therefore mistook what I said. Notice that I'm not having this problem with Annie? Notice that me and her can speak like two reasonable adults.
> 
> I'm not sure what is the problem with some of you in this thread, maybe it's your "outrage" shining through. All I know is that it's making some of you act very irrational.
> 
> I have already admitted I should of used the word uncommon instead of normal. I would say you need to act like a grown up, because you are the one acting like a five year old in this thread.
Click to expand...

*I* mistook nothing but your repeated claims (see above) of what is normal in the scientific community.  *YOUR* words, several times.  

You will get treated like a child when you, a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts, THINK that you can speak with some credibility on what is normal in the scientific community, as you did above. 

Such hubris that goes beyond the point of hubris into utter stubborn stupidity is common with those who are immature.

Grow up.  Grown ups - those with developed character - do not pathetically try to weasel out of their clear errors.  Grown ups do not attempt to lay blame on another for their own errors.


----------



## Modbert

Big Fitz said:


> Meh... we'll see if that holds true.  I've not read enough of your posts to verify that yet.



I'm not saying that Pollution = Global Warming. Let me make that very clear for you. I'm saying which is what you agree with me on, that mankind can poison the environment. That is why I mentioned Japan and their water situation exactly after.

As for your post, that first part I've kept is exactly my point. You have not read enough of my posts to know how I post. YET, you jumped to a conclusion, and THOUGHT I had said something. Welcome to the board I would like to say, and I would recommend asking people to clarify before you assume their style of posting.

I'm not doing anything to your manhood. I'm simply saying you should apologize for jumping to shove your self-righteousness in my face when you should of asked me to clarify. You could of avoided typing all that up by asking me a simple question.


----------



## Modbert

Modo, I have already stated twice about my misuse of the word normal where I should of said it was uncommon. It was only after I realized my error. If you want to continue to act five, and be like "Oh my god, you made a error! You're human!" then be my guest. 

However, I'll ask again, do you want to discuss this like adults or do you want to act like you've discovered a new planet with pointing out something I've already admitted? 

A yes or no will be enough by the way. I don't need a long-winded answer.


----------



## Si modo

Dogbert said:


> Modo, I have already stated twice about my misuse of the word normal where I should of said it was uncommon. ....


Finally.  *I *mistook nothing.  *YOU* were flat wrong.



> ....  It was only after I realized my error. If you want to continue to act five, and be like "Oh my god, you made a error! You're human!" then be my guest.
> 
> However, I'll ask again, do you want to discuss this like adults or do you want to act like you've discovered a new planet with pointing out something I've already admitted?
> 
> A yes or no will be enough by the way. I don't need a long-winded answer.


Now that you have finally acted somewhat like an adult, sure.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> Now that you have finally acted somewhat like an adult, sure.



I wasn't wrong about it being not rare. I was wrong about my word usage. I have admitted that three times now. Now, we can move on and discuss this more throughly. I have acted like an adult throughout this thread by the way.


----------



## Si modo

Now that we are all agreed that marginalization and dishonesty are NOT the norm in the scientific community, let's continue.


----------



## Big Fitz

> I'm not doing anything to your manhood. I'm simply saying you should apologize for jumping to shove your self-righteousness in my face when you should of asked me to clarify. You could of avoided typing all that up by asking me a simple question.



Then you should not have used the phrase 'man up'.  The inherent assumption made by that statement is that the person it is directed at is being immature, or somehow less of a 'man'.  This unto itself if I want to split hairs is worth an apology.  But since I am a 'man', I also know I'm a big enough man to have a thick skin to this kinda stuff and don't need an apology.

Calling me self righteous though I do find a tad insulting, as I was not being self righteous at all.  I was correcting a logical fallacy that is for some unfathomable reason often popped off by many an ignorant environmentalist.  Whether or not you hold to these things was unclear.  I could have asked, but instead erred on the side of public service and clarified the issue for everyone else (receiving a thanks in the matter as well) to see.

So take from this what you want, but I've still nothing to apologize for, nor are you obligated to apologize to me for your shots, real or imagined.  We can both pull up our big boy panties and soldier on.


----------



## Modbert

Si modo said:


> Now that we are all agreed that marginalization and dishonesty are NOT the norm in the scientific community, let's continue.



Thanksgiving dinner was good.


----------



## saveliberty

Annie said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Perhaps as a freshman undergraduate student, not even a student of the sciences, you THINK you know what you're talking about with respect to the scientific community, but you do not.
> 
> It is not normal practice.  Finding one example or even ten examples of it actually happening does nothing to prove that it IS a normal practice.  Look up the definition of normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject.
> 
> What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times.
> 
> Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen.
> 
> In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data.
> 
> Robert, you are really defending that?
Click to expand...


Indeed, as a scientist, you are supposed to be noting in your findings ANY possible problem with them.  It is often difficult to eliminate all variables except the one being studied.  You must account for this in your data collection and clearly report what you did to avoid the variables.

You shouldn't be preventing dissenting research and publishing of papers, but preparing a paper to refute the findings.  Despite their background as people of science, human nature kicked in and they lied when caught.


----------



## Si modo

saveliberty said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> My age in this case has no foundation and for you to try to use that against me is dishonest. What matters is the knowledge on the subject.
> 
> What I'm saying is that this sort of behavior being exhibited in this case supposedly is not uncommon. So while you and others may like to act like it is, it is an ugly truth of Science at times.
> 
> Why do you think scientists have to be so protective and secretive of their work until they finish it? If everyone was hunky dory and so honest, why hide anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There would have been no discovery of HIV, by anyone, if others hadn't made breakthroughs before them. The roles of science is to seek the truth, wherever that may lie in the field of endeavor. Formulate a question, hypothesis, test, observe, record, make conclusion. May be done many times before finding something worth sharing, until then competitive folks keep it quiet, otherwise bragging might get it stolen.
> 
> In this case, over nearly 2 decades it seems that there was one 'group' that gained control of universities, government grants and ears, then publications of 'Standard.' They were preventing other sides to even submit; meanwhile passing off their papers as 'peer reviewed' even when their numbers, conclusions, etc., were questioned. They refused government requests for FOI materials, it appears they destroyed emails and 'lost' data.
> 
> Robert, you are really defending that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, as a scientist, you are supposed to be noting in your findings ANY possible problem with them.
> It is often difficult to eliminate all variables except the one being studied.  You must account for this in your data collection and clearly report what you did to avoid the variables.
> 
> You shouldn't be preventing dissenting research and publishing of papers, but preparing a paper to refute the findings.  Despite their background as people of science, human nature kicked in and they lied when caught.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.  One's work is considered incomplete if this is not included.  Peer-review is supposed to find those omissions, as well.  The reviewer will point those omissions out to the author and return the work to the author for this inclusion.


----------



## blu

I enjoy the people who say the emails prove GW wrong when they don't even understand basic science. they could easily be replaced with parrots or a copy/paste bot.


----------



## Oddball

I enjoy blind loyalists who deflect and change the subject, in a lame attempt to distract from the issue at hand. They could easily be replaced with parrots or a copy/paste bot.


----------



## blu

nope, I didn't believe in GW since day 1, I just don't see why the republicans are starting a circle jerk over content they don't even understand.


----------



## Oddball

First of all, I'm not a republican. Haven't even voted for one since '94.

Secondly, you don't need to be a PhD in linguistics to recognize language that indicates fudging of numbers in your favor, destruction of repudiating evidence (in the legal world, that's known as obstruction), collusion to exclude those who produce that evidence from the process, and conspiracies to destroy careers and publications that don't toe your line. Then, we're also looking at criminal charges of fraud, as it relates to the research grants these hacks have received, under the guise of doing above-board scientific research.

And that's before the coders have gone to work to unravel all the information.

If that's science, I don't want to hear about that bridge for sale.


----------



## Big Fitz

Dude said:


> First of all, I'm not a republican. Haven't even voted for one since '94.
> 
> Secondly, you don't need to be a PhD in linguistics to recognize language that indicates fudging of numbers in your favor, destruction of repudiating evidence (in the legal world, that's known as obstruction), collusion to exclude those who produce that evidence from the process, and conspiracies to destroy careers and publications that don't toe your line. Then, we're also looking at criminal charges of fraud, as it relates to the research grants these hacks have received, under the guise of doing above-board scientific research.
> 
> And that's before the coders have gone to work to unravel all the information.
> 
> If that's science, I don't want to hear about that bridge for sale.


How about some nice ocean view property in Wyoming?  You'd want that wouldn't you?


----------



## saveliberty

Big Fitz said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I'm not a republican. Haven't even voted for one since '94.
> 
> Secondly, you don't need to be a PhD in linguistics to recognize language that indicates fudging of numbers in your favor, destruction of repudiating evidence (in the legal world, that's known as obstruction), collusion to exclude those who produce that evidence from the process, and conspiracies to destroy careers and publications that don't toe your line. Then, we're also looking at criminal charges of fraud, as it relates to the research grants these hacks have received, under the guise of doing above-board scientific research.
> 
> And that's before the coders have gone to work to unravel all the information.
> 
> If that's science, I don't want to hear about that bridge for sale.
> 
> 
> 
> How about some nice ocean view property in Wyoming?  You'd want that wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


I was under the impression that is where ocean front property was going to be.


----------



## saveliberty

Dogbert said:


> Modo, I have already stated twice about my misuse of the word normal where I should of said it was uncommon. It was only after I realized my error. If you want to continue to act five, and be like "Oh my god, you made a error! You're human!" then be my guest.
> 
> However, I'll ask again, do you want to discuss this like adults or do you want to act like you've discovered a new planet with pointing out something I've already admitted?
> 
> A yes or no will be enough by the way. I don't need a long-winded answer.



Consider yourself bopped with a cardboard tube.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Big Fitz

saveliberty said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I'm not a republican. Haven't even voted for one since '94.
> 
> Secondly, you don't need to be a PhD in linguistics to recognize language that indicates fudging of numbers in your favor, destruction of repudiating evidence (in the legal world, that's known as obstruction), collusion to exclude those who produce that evidence from the process, and conspiracies to destroy careers and publications that don't toe your line. Then, we're also looking at criminal charges of fraud, as it relates to the research grants these hacks have received, under the guise of doing above-board scientific research.
> 
> And that's before the coders have gone to work to unravel all the information.
> 
> If that's science, I don't want to hear about that bridge for sale.
> 
> 
> 
> How about some nice ocean view property in Wyoming?  You'd want that wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that is where ocean front property was going to be.
Click to expand...

No no... you're thinking Nevada.


----------



## saveliberty

Big Fitz said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about some nice ocean view property in Wyoming?  You'd want that wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that is where ocean front property was going to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no... you're thinking Nevada.
Click to expand...


Neat, that stuff is cheap right now.


----------



## Annie

saveliberty said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that is where ocean front property was going to be.
> 
> 
> 
> No no... you're thinking Nevada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neat, that stuff is cheap right now.
Click to expand...


Chicago, salt. 

On the other hand, are there serious problems with water? Salinity? Yes. Do we want lower costs? Listen to the opposition. It's an extension of 'hide the decline.'


----------



## Political Junky

Philobeado said:


> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org


And Fox is like a dog with a bone ... they won't let go of that story.


----------



## Big Fitz

Political Junky said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> And Fox is like a dog with a bone ... they won't let go of that story.
Click to expand...

Like Woodward and Burnstein.


----------



## FactFinder

Political Junky said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> And Fox is like a dog with a bone ... they won't let go of that story.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm....could be that Fox covers the stories people are really interested in. That could have something to do with their number one ratings, heh?


----------



## chanel

A multi- trillion dollar commitment in Copenhagen?  You bet your ass Fox won't let it go.


----------



## DavidS

Political Junky said:


> Philobeado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.
> 
> Despite last Friday morning's bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world's leading global warming alarmists -- many with direct ties to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.
> 
> LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.
> 
> By contrast, here are some of the stories news organizations apparently favored by the Obama adminstration have covered since ClimateGate broke:
> 
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
> ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson" Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
> CBS "Evening News" Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
> CBS "Evening News" Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie "New Moon"
> CBS "Evening News" Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
> NBC "Nightly News" Friday reported on Switzerland's supercollider being turned back on
> NBC "Nightly News" Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
> NBC "Nightly News" Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle's CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.
> It's not that these aren't valid news stories, but should they ALL be of greater importance than a scandal involving scientists from around the world including some employed by NASA and American colleges?
> 
> ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox | NewsBusters.org
> 
> 
> 
> And Fox is like a dog with a bone ... they won't let go of that story.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you something.

You're a journalist, ok?

You find a news story that basically uncovers the greatest hoax of all time: The governments of the world are trying to trick people into accepting a carbon tax. 

What do you do? Do you report the story and move onto other stories, or do you keep reporting the story and every single aspect of it? This is, potentially, the biggest story since 9/11, and NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER MEDIA OUTLET is reporting it. 

That's disgraceful and disgusting, honestly.


----------



## Big Fitz

Want to find who's behind the crime?  Follow the money.


----------



## JimH52

I have yet to see evidence of fraud, but if there is BRING IT ON.  The truth will prevail.


----------



## Intense

JimH52 said:


> I have yet to see evidence of fraud, but if there is BRING IT ON.  The truth will prevail.



How much do You figure the Voter Registration Abuse cost to clean up? Times 50 States.


----------



## JimH52

Intense said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see evidence of fraud, but if there is BRING IT ON.  The truth will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much do You figure the Voter Registration Abuse cost to clean up? Times 50 States.
Click to expand...


----------



## Intense

JimH52 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see evidence of fraud, but if there is BRING IT ON.  The truth will prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much do You figure the Voter Registration Abuse cost to clean up? Times 50 States.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Sorry, wrong topic. 

It does seem a bit early on the evidence of fraud, considering how the information was attained. I would bet on allot more Obstruction, Deleting, and Shredding right now.


----------



## Oddball

If accepting grants and in-kind donations to perpetrate and perpetuate a hoax isn't fraud, nothing is.


----------

