Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign" (The frauds still running the muck)

Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

The scientists—Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington—were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climate Gate."

You think Obamacare has been a dirty fight, you ain't seen nothing yet. The left have gone “all in” on global warming. A defeat would be worse for them then any global warming scenario.

You apparantly don't know the left very well.

When it becomes too much to keep this BS campaign going, they'll turn their backs on as one. It'll be like throwing a light switch. The MSM, academia, othe opinion leaders for the left will drop the subject into the memory hole, and that'll be it. They'll quickly come up with some other boogie-man, and start screaming about that at the top of their lungs. This moment has not yet arrived, however.

By the way, I'll make a far-reaching prediction right now: the solution to the new boogie man will be, by an amazing coincidence, the same as it was for AGW: we must immediately do away with capitalism and freedom, or we're all going to die.

The fallout from the scandal is putting some of the world's leading climate scientists on the defensive and underlining the influence of skeptics, even as the case for human-caused warming gets stronger.

Note how Reuters editorializes - should read "...even as (climate researchers claim that the) case for...

The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.

Needless to say the emails expose not only fraud by many of the leading "peers" but also an attempt to freeze out any scientist that doesn't agree with the leading peers so that they will never be themselves peers of dissent.

The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.

Global warming emissions (note how Reuters presumes that CO2 is "warming emissions") are obviously higher by all their claims but of course no mention of the cooling reality. As to sea level rise being "80% above past IPCC predictions" - What predictions? When were the predictions made? Not 73%? No info so apparently only the shadow knows.

If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided—the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur—fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.

Once again easy numbers for idiots to digest. Not 1.73 Celsius? How about 2.04 Celsius? Just fodder for twits but it again exposes them as condescending to people of basic intelligence.

This article mentions a major scandal without noting any direct quote from the emails, gives a huge soapbox for Mann and Co. to claim a nefarious conspiracy, and attempts to frame critics as just being "cranky" and thus unworthy of investigation into said critics criticism. There may be a lot of people invested in GW but it is becoming easier and easier to show what an emotional/profitable farce that it is.

This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.
. . . The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."
Of course there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change." Bernard Madoff was deeply committed, too. That's always true of the conspirators in any successful fraud.

Thus we see the problem inherent in any advocacy science trying to gage the importance of their own issue.

Hire an “Air Quality Expert” for 100,000 a year.

Then ask him... “Do you think air quality is a problem?”

Do you think he is going to say “Not really, air quality has been improving over the last decade.”?

Or is he going to say “The longterm effects of many of these pollutants has never been gaged and we must be ever vigilant....”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.