Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.
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.
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.
Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the real context of this one, edthelemming?
~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center." [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the real context of this one, edthelemming?
~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center." [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
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!!!!!!
Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???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." [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
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!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just as I predicted!!! That didn't take long. A dodge rather than the email.Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???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.
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.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.
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.
If I was gullible you would have posted the whole email proving the context was "skeptics" and not 2 specific papers.Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the real context of this one, edthelemming?
~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center.
What do YOU have to hide??? Could it be they were discussing two particularly unscientific hack job papers rather than "the skeptics" in general, as your ADDED words imply???
POST THE WHOLE EMAIL and prove your added words don't change the context.
I predict you won't!!!!!!
After reading this, all I can say is for a cynic you are awfully gullible about global warming.
Again we have an "OUT OF CONTEXT" quote peppered with added words. Why wont you post the ENTIRE email that quote was manufactured from???Why don't you indulge all of we backward-assed provincial "CON$" and give us the real context of this one, edthelemming?
~Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center." [We] will keep them (the skeptics) out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
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!!!!!!
That's exactly what the email shows and it is exactly why Dud won't post it.
To borrow the word of the day: Twit, it's quite obvious that the GWT have defenders.
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.Just as I predicted!!! That didn't take long. A dodge rather than the email.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.
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.
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.
If I was gullible you would have posted the whole email proving the context was "skeptics" and not 2 specific papers.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.
NBC ran the Climate Conference story tonight. Not word one about Climategate. Full speed ahead on reductions in emissions to save the planet.
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.
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...
