ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

[MaggieMae]

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.

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.

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

 

[Annie]

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.

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

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

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

 

[MaggieMae]

NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo

Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute

Hacked global warming e-mails – 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.

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.

 

[Annie]

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??

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder fo

Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute

Hacked global warming e-mails – 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.

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.

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

 

[Annie]

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.

Ironically, those particular comments hardly support your case.

They weren't 'my quotes'...

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

"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.

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....

 

[Annie]

"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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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".

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

 

[Oddball]

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".

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

Yeah, right.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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".

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....

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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