ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

[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???

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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???

Excellent question.

 

[Modbert]

Scientists disagreeing with one another? What is this tomfoolery!

 

[Oddball]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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. ...

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.