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

[midcan5]

Many people realized this story made no sense given the evidence, but it fit into a worldview which opposes anything considered progressive or even scientific. It amazes how unknowledgeable the average citizen is - and that is true in most nations not just America. So much of debate and discussion is over topics that many knew were false, and yet they still occupy the mind and the knowledge of many.


'The Times of London published utterly untrue stories about the "climategate" emails; now they regret the error'

"It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

But once the name "climategate" was affixed to the trumped-up non-scandal and printed in large type in a major newspaper, it didn't matter what the emails said. Not a whit. Emails, scandal, "-gate" -- there must be something to this!

There wasn't. Amazingly, The Sunday Times of London has now effectively retracted its most damning stories on the manufactured outrage. Months too late, obviously."


Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late - War Room - Salon.com


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

=======================

"Given all this, a robust debate about public opinion would seem warranted. If Americans cannot think straight about events of the magnitude of 9/11 and the Iraq War, what can they think straight about? But no such debate has been forthcoming. Instead, we have had endless arguments about the media and the nefariousness of the Bush administration. Both of these arguments have merit, in my opinion. But the real problem is with Americans. Too many simply pay so little attention to politics that they are sitting ducks for manipulative politicians."

American Democracy: The 10 Alarm Fire We're Ignoring
History News Network


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

 

[Oddball]

Right...And all these subsequently discovered scams by the warmists were just trumped up by a sensationalist media, too.

Print Article: Mark Landsbaum: What to say to a global warming alarmist

Likewise, I see that they say nothing about the jimmied computer code, which was also released with the e-mails.

 

[Mini 14]

Now that Gore is going to lose half of his wealth (Tennessee is a community property State), look for the global warming crisis to crank back up.

Daddy needs new shoes.

 

[uscitizen]

Darned conservative media.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Now that Gore is going to lose half of his wealth (Tennessee is a community property State), look for the global warming crisis to crank back up.

Daddy needs new shoes.

And you can take that to the bank.

 

[PlungerPete]

Excellsior!!!!!!

 

[Tom Clancy]

Excellsior!!!!!!

 

[PlungerPete]

thanks for the laugh Tom!

 

[hortysir]

In a totally unrelated story, The Times of London has amassed a large sum of money with no easily traceable source.

 

[gslack]

Many people realized this story made no sense given the evidence, but it fit into a worldview which opposes anything considered progressive or even scientific. It amazes how unknowledgeable the average citizen is - and that is true in most nations not just America. So much of debate and discussion is over topics that many knew were false, and yet they still occupy the mind and the knowledge of many.


'The Times of London published utterly untrue stories about the "climategate" emails; now they regret the error'

"It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

But once the name "climategate" was affixed to the trumped-up non-scandal and printed in large type in a major newspaper, it didn't matter what the emails said. Not a whit. Emails, scandal, "-gate" -- there must be something to this!

There wasn't. Amazingly, The Sunday Times of London has now effectively retracted its most damning stories on the manufactured outrage. Months too late, obviously."


Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late - War Room - Salon.com


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

=======================

"Given all this, a robust debate about public opinion would seem warranted. If Americans cannot think straight about events of the magnitude of 9/11 and the Iraq War, what can they think straight about? But no such debate has been forthcoming. Instead, we have had endless arguments about the media and the nefariousness of the Bush administration. Both of these arguments have merit, in my opinion. But the real problem is with Americans. Too many simply pay so little attention to politics that they are sitting ducks for manipulative politicians."

American Democracy: The 10 Alarm Fire We're Ignoring
History News Network


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

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 two articles you linked to talk about london times retracting a story the did about the IPCC claims regarding rainforest's being gone in 40 years.... Yeah not a word about climategate...

So take your lying propaganda and stick it....

 

[Mini 14]

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 two articles you linked to talk about london times retracting a story the did about the IPCC claims regarding rainforest's being gone in 40 years.... Yeah not a word about climategate...

So take your lying propaganda and stick it....

I was wondering about that as well. If the paper retracted an earlier story, why not simply link to the retraction, and not some opinion piece by a third party about what constitutes a retraction.

 

[DiveCon]

Many people realized this story made no sense given the evidence, but it fit into a worldview which opposes anything considered progressive or even scientific. It amazes how unknowledgeable the average citizen is - and that is true in most nations not just America. So much of debate and discussion is over topics that many knew were false, and yet they still occupy the mind and the knowledge of many.


'The Times of London published utterly untrue stories about the "climategate" emails; now they regret the error'

"It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

But once the name "climategate" was affixed to the trumped-up non-scandal and printed in large type in a major newspaper, it didn't matter what the emails said. Not a whit. Emails, scandal, "-gate" -- there must be something to this!

There wasn't. Amazingly, The Sunday Times of London has now effectively retracted its most damning stories on the manufactured outrage. Months too late, obviously."


Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late - War Room - Salon.com


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

=======================

"Given all this, a robust debate about public opinion would seem warranted. If Americans cannot think straight about events of the magnitude of 9/11 and the Iraq War, what can they think straight about? But no such debate has been forthcoming. Instead, we have had endless arguments about the media and the nefariousness of the Bush administration. Both of these arguments have merit, in my opinion. But the real problem is with Americans. Too many simply pay so little attention to politics that they are sitting ducks for manipulative politicians."

American Democracy: The 10 Alarm Fire We're Ignoring
History News Network


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

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 two articles you linked to talk about london times retracting a story the did about the IPCC claims regarding rainforest's being gone in 40 years.... Yeah not a word about climategate...

So take your lying propaganda and stick it....

look at the first source
salon.com
LOL

 

[midcan5]

[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

 

[gslack]

Many people realized this story made no sense given the evidence, but it fit into a worldview which opposes anything considered progressive or even scientific. It amazes how unknowledgeable the average citizen is - and that is true in most nations not just America. So much of debate and discussion is over topics that many knew were false, and yet they still occupy the mind and the knowledge of many.


'The Times of London published utterly untrue stories about the "climategate" emails; now they regret the error'

"It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.

But once the name "climategate" was affixed to the trumped-up non-scandal and printed in large type in a major newspaper, it didn't matter what the emails said. Not a whit. Emails, scandal, "-gate" -- there must be something to this!

There wasn't. Amazingly, The Sunday Times of London has now effectively retracted its most damning stories on the manufactured outrage. Months too late, obviously."


Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late - War Room - Salon.com


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

=======================

"Given all this, a robust debate about public opinion would seem warranted. If Americans cannot think straight about events of the magnitude of 9/11 and the Iraq War, what can they think straight about? But no such debate has been forthcoming. Instead, we have had endless arguments about the media and the nefariousness of the Bush administration. Both of these arguments have merit, in my opinion. But the real problem is with Americans. Too many simply pay so little attention to politics that they are sitting ducks for manipulative politicians."

American Democracy: The 10 Alarm Fire We're Ignoring
History News Network


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

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 two articles you linked to talk about london times retracting a story the did about the IPCC claims regarding rainforest's being gone in 40 years.... Yeah not a word about climategate...

So take your lying propaganda and stick it....

look at the first source
salon.com
LOL

Read BOTH....Neither one has a retraction of the climate gate story..... Read them yourself you will see that as well.....

 

[DiveCon]

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 two articles you linked to talk about london times retracting a story the did about the IPCC claims regarding rainforest's being gone in 40 years.... Yeah not a word about climategate...

So take your lying propaganda and stick it....

look at the first source
salon.com
LOL

Read BOTH....Neither one has a retraction of the climate gate story..... Read them yourself you will see that as well.....

i dont read links posted by midcant
and i know enough about the slant of Salon.com to know that they would lie in a headline, and the same goes for newsweak

 

[gslack]

[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

OK once more....

Please point to where the retraction is... Even in the little paragraph you cited where is the retraction of climate gate.....

The rainforest was not a central argument in climategate... Look at the dates of the rainforest article.... 2007... yeah climtategate was this past year... And if that were not enough the two things are unrelated completely...

Now unless you are completely ignorant of reality here, you at least can tell the difference between the two things..... What your sources did was take a correction made by the london times and decide to call it "effectively retracted" which adding the word "effectively" on the front makes the following word dubious at best.. Its an age old trick to keep from being called a liar and asked to prove something..

A correction on a story 2 years ago about rainforest's is in no way shape or form a retraction of a climate gate story from a few months ago.. Now you just got shamed by rag in your OP article... Learn to spot dubious words which give ambiguity to a claim.. Words lie "effectively retracted" are the same as saying they almost retracted but didn't ....

How old are you people who buy this crap? Don't any of you actually READ any thing beyond the headlines anymore??

 

[Oddball]

Now unless you are completely ignorant of reality here, you at least can tell the difference between the two things...

Suffice to say he midcant tell the difference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What a joke!

This is like post-Hiroshima, saying "we don't believe the atomic bomb will actually work"

Where's Phil Jones? Where's Mann and his tree rings?

You're Busted!

 

[midcan5]

Sorry that this information conflicts with your denials that the earth is round, oh sorry, wrong denial, you deniers need to forgive me as it would take forever to correct every piece of nonsense posted by right wing corporate tools. Newspapers do not have corrections because they love it. The gist is contained in this sentence: "It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change." Try hard to stick to the issue noted.


"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."

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


The Sunday Times and the IPCC: Correction

The Sunday Times Published: 20 June 2010


"The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, January 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 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.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’s concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view — rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this."

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article322890.ece?lightbox=false

 

[gslack]

Sorry that this information conflicts with your denials that the earth is round, oh sorry, wrong denial, you deniers need to forgive me as it would take forever to correct every piece of nonsense posted by right wing corporate tools. Newspapers do not have corrections because they love it. The gist is contained in this sentence: "It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change." Try hard to stick to the issue noted.


"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."

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


The Sunday Times and the IPCC: Correction

The Sunday Times Published: 20 June 2010


"The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, January 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 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.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.

The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change.

In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’s concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view — rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this."

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article322890.ece?lightbox=false

YOU can re-post it till you are blue in the face and it will still say the same thing... They made a correction to a story almost 2 years ago, and it is related to the IPCC claims on the rain forests.. It has nothing to do with climate gate, they just decided to try and call it a retraction... or a "effective retraction"..LOL

You really didn't read it yet did you? LOL....

OMG, you just posted it like a blind troll without reading it? No wonder you keep denying what it says, pretty dam embarrassing...

You tell me what a correction of a article about rain forests claims the IPCC made from two years ago has to do with climtegate from a few months ago?

Jesus where do they get the drugs they feed you people.....