'Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late'

[I read your articles and there was no retraction... Care to explain that????

Your articles cite other statements from the London Times and claims they have "effectively retracted" their climtategate story... WHat does "effectively retracted" mean?

Well going by what their article says it means anything they wish it to mean.....


The usual band of fools and the usual non replies and simpleminded circle jerk of idiots. Should one expect more from people who know as much about the issues as a worm knows of walking. Sorry following the story line lost you guys.

When one reads the wingnut replies one comes to understand why Sarah and Glenn are the intellectual minds for the 'Idiocracy of the Right.' Whacked out partisan ideologues require simple words and simple ideas, it fits the narrative in their heads.

From article. If you need help with the big words, please let me know. If the concepts are over your heads, I'd suggest a return to grade school or maybe a tutor. Mommy may be able to help too.


It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

"But not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of “falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information” in February. In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

It’s worth quoting the retraction at some length:

The article "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim" (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change."

Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done - Newsweek

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

I'm really getting worried about you...you're getting crazier and crazier!

I attribute it to the fall from grace, or at least credibility of your fav President.


But in case you're sticking to the OP, when does Professor Hulme retract the op ed where he admitted that truth isn't necessary for scientists at East Anglia?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.

So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

c. The leading proponents of ‘post-normal science,’ PNS, Funtowicz and Ravetz, have written that, in issue-driven science, ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are unified by replacing ‘truth’ by ‘quality.’ http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf

Thus, we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.

And, don't worry about your progressive administration...they come back ever hundred years.
 
The OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.

PS Both DiveCon and Mr.Fitnah negative repped me for an OP that is clear and accurate and corrects the mistakes made by the source of the information. Would that make sense if you actually read the piece and thought about it? No, it only contradicts a worldview that requires a consistency not present in life, and says lots about those who know nothing about climate except that in their partisan world they can only think one way.
 
Last edited:
"In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence."

Captain Renault: Global Warming is real.
[Renault looks at Rick, Rick gives him a look, they look at East Angelia latest data]
Captain Renault: Round up the usual suspects.
 
The OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.

Give me a rough estimate in percentages of the Greenhouse contribution of water vapor and CO2, on planet Earth. How do you assign a value to each, again, just a rough estimate.
 
Warmers can you please allocate Warming between H2O and CO2? A rough estimate will suffice.
 
The OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.

PS Both DiveCon and Mr.Fitnah negative repped me for an OP that is clear and accurate and corrects the mistakes made by the source of the information. Would that make sense if you actually read the piece and thought about it? No, it only contradicts a worldview that requires a consistency not present in life, and says lots about those who know nothing about climate except that in their partisan world they can only think one way.
no, the OP does not
 
The OP pieces and the retraction focus on the poor and incorrect information in the media. Information that is not checked well for accuracy. I realize subtlety is not something flat earth deniers are used to as all you have to walk forward, and you have confirmed your small idea. The correction is there but the negative impact of corporate spokespeople and media has great power over many. Sorry this is over your heads. I am not sure how much clearer a piece can be. It only proves that knowledge is not real for many but rather a creation of their biases and predispositions.

PS Both DiveCon and Mr.Fitnah negative repped me for an OP that is clear and accurate and corrects the mistakes made by the source of the information. Would that make sense if you actually read the piece and thought about it? No, it only contradicts a worldview that requires a consistency not present in life, and says lots about those who know nothing about climate except that in their partisan world they can only think one way.

Nah from seeing the thread and what you tried to do so far, I ma sure they negged you for trying to lie your way out of an embarrassing OP...
 
Mann has been totally exonerated here in the States, and Jones and East Anglia have been the same in England.

Our local cretin brigade prefers to ignore the facts once again. And they will move on to another lie, never acknowledging that this one failed.
 
Mann has been totally exonerated here in the States, and Jones and East Anglia have been the same in England.

Our local cretin brigade prefers to ignore the facts once again. And they will move on to another lie, never acknowledging that this one failed.

BULLSHIT!

He has been nailed and his career is in jeopardy as the global warmers are routed out....
 
Mann has been totally exonerated here in the States, and Jones and East Anglia have been the same in England.

Our local cretin brigade prefers to ignore the facts once again. And they will move on to another lie, never acknowledging that this one failed.
keep showing how massively fucking stupid you can be, it is very amusing
 
Mann: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that fake science is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once and take your tree rings with you!
 
Mann and Jones have been busted, discredited, exposed and outed and all real scientists are seething at the prospect of sharing their facilities with Climate Science Homeopathy and Phrenologists.
 
Well, the wingnuts have once more succeeded in making fools of themselves as the investigations have totally exonerated those at East Anglia, and the same for Mann.

The denial of reality is so damned obvious, given what the scientists are stating concerning AGW.
 
Even the wingnut opinionated wsj....

'Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists'

'U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness'

'Climategate' Inquiry Largely Vindicates Scientists - WSJ.com
holy shit, the WSJ is wingnut to you???
i guess from the moonbat perspective it might be
you moronic moonbat

Yes, concerning AGW, the WSJ is wingnut. What if peer reviewed scientific journals, Science and Nature, were to start giving advice concerning investments? What would you consider that?

The WSJ is looking at things strictly from a corperate point of view. Corperations that depend on the sale of fossil fuels for huge profit margins. And reality states that this cannot continue. The WSJ does not like that reality. You do not like that reality. All of which changes that reality not one whit.
 
Even the wingnut opinionated wsj....

'Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists'

'U.K. Inquiry Concludes Researchers Didn't Skew Findings, but Says They Failed to Display a 'Proper Degree of Openness'

'Climategate' Inquiry Largely Vindicates Scientists - WSJ.com
holy shit, the WSJ is wingnut to you???
i guess from the moonbat perspective it might be
you moronic moonbat

Yes, concerning AGW, the WSJ is wingnut. What if peer reviewed scientific journals, Science and Nature, were to start giving advice concerning investments? What would you consider that?

The WSJ is looking at things strictly from a corperate point of view. Corperations that depend on the sale of fossil fuels for huge profit margins. And reality states that this cannot continue. The WSJ does not like that reality. You do not like that reality. All of which changes that reality not one whit.
again, YOU are a moonbat
LOL
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top