ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

[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

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?

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]

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?

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]

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.

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."

 

[Annie]

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.

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."

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

 

[MaggieMae]

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'...

Collectively "your." Picky picky picky.

 

[MaggieMae]

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....

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]

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.

Friends from your AA group?

 

[Annie]

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....

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.

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]

Friends from your AA group?

Nothing can compare with "keeping it honest"!

 

[MaggieMae]

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....

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]

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."

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

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]

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]

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!!!!!!

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.

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]

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]

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.

Yeah the Lancet.

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

 

[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?

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.

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