Sex Poodles for Global Warming!
Posted on 06/26/2010 9:28:17 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
*snip*
...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.
*snip*
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
It is an inconvenient truth for the Gaia worshipers that the original Climategate emails are still available on the Internet to anyone interested in the truth.
Global Warming Hoax Deniers at it again.
Sorry but the Fortran “correction” isn’t accounted for.
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
Sex Poodles for Global Warming!
Maybe you should read more in depth this puff piece and its references? This cobbled together article is simply s construed attempt to again legitimize the exposed illegitimate junk 'science' involved... For instance, PSU & UEA are STILL investigating the matter -far from a done deal that the retractions and this puff piece citing the retractions purports.
As well, the investigation perspective PSU took on matters determined thus far was whether or not there was INTENT to deceive on the part of Mann and did not directly address the issue of junk scientific method or results thus far -they seem to look at proving or disproving intent or motive and ignore even looking into the data?
Additionally, I have seen nothing that addresses the suppression and or commission of studies or data. Neither investigative effort has mentioned even pursuing this avenue or even interviewing said supposed 'censored' scientists...
So far, it sire looks like a whitewash job to me...
Maybe you should ask before you assume. I've been reading the European versions of this story for a couple of days.
You can just deny anything that doesn't appeal to your worldview. I prefer truth, even if it's "inconvenient" because I know in the end the Global Warming stuff is a farce--using lies to disprove it helps the kooks.
Maybe you should read my post TOO and refute what I specifically went to the effort to kindly point out for YOU?
Who asked you to? I couldn't care less what you think.
You can lead a horse to water ...
Lazy...
Your definitive opinion is somewhat LESS substantial to me now -definitely questionable...
You are under this bizarre idea that I care at all what you think, whoever you are.
Your snotty attitude doesn't impress. I'll await your next foolish waste of cyberspace.
Newsweak? I’ll read this issue in my doctor’s office next year.
Maybe next time you will think twice when you speak for we.
Some of the we people actually may mot be lazy and in fact disagree with YOU...
Loser...
Global climate change will occur with or without human influence, and no one, not even Al Gore, is willing to sacrifice his life style if that is what is required to stop ‘climate change’. Therefore, what is the point to all of this?
That you're so ignorant of a simple rhetorical device, and you insist on being a petulant little child, and you still seem to think I give a damn what you think--or IF you can think.
Some of the we people actually may mot be lazy and in fact disagree with YOU...
Of course people disagree with me. Those people also understand a simple rhetorical device that's beyond you, and don't get so pouty and whiney like a widdle baby.
Look at how silly you are, thinking I care what you think when you prissily make an assumption (that I'm relying on this article) and are then shot down.
Loser...
LOL AWWWWW, the poor baby had his widdle feeeeeelings hurt because I don't give a damn about his ignorant opinion!
Thanks for the laughs, junior, now just a few more minutes of cartoons then off to bed!
Just keep pretending it is all about YOU and my need for your approval...
http://climatequotes.com/2010/06/25/newsweek-climategate-article/
Newsweek climategate article
A college friend of mine who knows I write about climate change brought this Newsweek article to my attention today:
Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done
He wanted my opinion on it. I wrote a quick review of the article, and I’m reposting it (slightly modified) below.
Joe, this article is written by a women who either does not understand the issue, or is willing to further distort it. This is readily apparent in multiple ways, and I’ll highlight a few. You got my fingers going, so this is going to be fairly long.
The headline claims that multiple papers have retracted ‘climategate’ claims. She actually only quotes one paper (references another German paper), and here is the problem: Neither of these articles have anything to do whatsoever with climategate. It is a subtle misdirection, she opens up by talking about climategate then mentions the two article retractions, but there is no link between the two. Climategate was a leak or hack of emails from the CRU in Britian, the articles were talking about mistakes in the UN IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), two totally separate issues. This mistake invalidates the entire point of the article, but the mistakes don’t stop there.
Her opening statement speaks of climategate as a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal”, which is a hard pill to swallow. The emails were released on a relatively unknown blog, and bloggers (like me) went through the emails and found all the goodies ourselves. Even is this claim is to be believed, the author attempts to completely dismiss climategate by mentioning the ‘inquiries’ into Jones and Mann. The inquiry into Jones is almost comical in its brevity. Considering the gravity of the accusations and the serious implications of Jones cooking the books, the Oxburgh report was a total of....five pages. Not only that, but they didn’t keep any record of how they reached their conclusions that Jones was innocent, leaving us to simply trust them. The Mann investigation was just as bad. Penn State had little incentive to chastise the man who gets them millions every year in funding.
If it is hard for you to believe that both of these investigations could be farces, let me simply direct you to the climategate e-mails themselves. Anyone who claims that climategate is a non-issue has not read the e-mails, or doesn’t understand them. Read them here (I can highlight a few of the better ones if you desire):
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Yet another problem with the article is the focus on ONE mistake in the AR4. This is still regarded by many to be a mistake, but even if you throw out this Amazon claim the AR4 is still full of mistakes. The false glacier claim is the most well known, but there are many more, quite a few which yours truly has found. They claim that climate change will reduce African tourism, but their source doesn’t mention Africa or tourism. They claim Canadian wildfires substantially negatively affected the local economy, but their source actually shows positive gains. They claim that the mangroves in Bangladesh are being irreversibly damaged by climate change, yet their source only mentions Pakistan’s mangroves. They cite a newspaper article claiming that 1.3 billion agricultural workers will be negatively affected by climate change, yet the article doesn’t cite any study or article at all. These are just some of the mistakes I personally have found. Yet another IPCC mistake (at least it seems to be so far) was revealed just yesterday:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=5910
To claim that climategate is now rendered false by two newspaper’s retractions about a separate issue, and to go on and claim that the AR4 actually isn’t full of mistakes, is a lie. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.”
Obviously..WE...dont care what you think either...
I plowed through tons of the leaked E-mails myself...there were clear calls to delete e-mails to avoid FOIA requests...
You can play the motive game all you want...but those requests are fact...
Here’s the same writter admitting last year that the e-mails are genuine...but the science is sound:
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/04/the-truth-about-climategate.html
I know when I’m being lied to...
AGW is the greatest SCAM in earths history to date.
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.