AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


Avro
-1
#1
Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony

PDF format.
 
Slim Chance
#2
A blog entry... How compelling
 
Avro
-1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

A blog entry... How compelling

A blog?

Just thought a counter thread would be a good idea.
 
Slim Chance
#4
Fair eough.
 
Avro
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

Fair eough.

I have another paper written by the same author and I will post it later if anyone bothers to read this one.
 
Slim Chance
#6
I read it... It appeared to represent an opinion more than anything else.
 
eh1eh
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim Chance View Post

I read it... It appeared to represent an opinion more than anything else.

You read a one hundred eighty-five page document in fifteen minutes. , I stand in awe.
 
Slim Chance
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1eh View Post

You read a one hundred eighty-five page document in fifteen minutes. , I stand in awe.


Have ya read the Table of Contents?.. It's pretty clear what the doc sets out to promote.

I'm guessing that there isn't much that doesn't inspire "awe" for you, is there?
 
Slim Chance
#9
I made the terrible mistake of reading the opening page - moved onto the table of contents and was able to determine that it is an opinion piece.

Seeing how the author supports his position in a manner that needs to employ emotionally charged talking points, relying on some ridiculous sentiment that the "skeptics" position assumes some strategy that cigarette companies used.

It's a waste of time. Anyone that maintains a solid and compelling argument, doesn't need to resort to some carnival-barker technique.

... So, on that note, I did read it - I read enough to understand that spending the time to peruse that 180+ pages would consume time out of my life that I could never get back.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Mar 19th, 2010 at 06:39 PM..Reason: Edited out quote that had been unapproved above already.
 
Ron in Regina
#10
The off Topic Trolling and personal attacks in this Thread have been removed.


(sadly...that was 1/2 the posts in this Thread at that point)
 
Avro
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

The off Topic Trolling and personal attacks in this Thread have been removed.


(sadly...that was 1/2 the posts in this Thread at that point)

You are pathetic.
 
Avro
#12
YouTube - Wanted: David and Charles Koch, Climate Criminals#
 
Tonington
#13
AGW denial, it's up there, with those claiming the moon landing was faked, Truthers, Birthers, all pretty much without any firm grasp on reality.
 
Avro
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

AGW denial, it's up there, with those claiming the moon landing was faked, Truthers, Birthers, all pretty much without any firm grasp on reality.

Don't forget the JFK conspiracy crowd.
 
Tonington
#15
Ahh yes. And the anti-immunization folk...
 
Avro
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Ahh yes. And the anti-immunization folk...

One in the same.
 
Avro
#17
This is part one of another paper on the climate denial industry.

Behind the Wegman Report and Decades of Related Anti-Science Attacks

Again in PDF format.....I will post the second part later.
 
Avro
#18
Greenpeace Releases 20-Year History of Climate Denial Industry

Greenpeace released a terrific report today on the 20-year campaign by polluters to mislead the public by creating the climate denial industry.
The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.

In the report, titled "Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science," Greenpeace provides a brief history of the attacks waged by polluting industries against climate science, the IPCC and individual scientists.

ExxonMobil deservedly gets special attention for its role as the ringleader of the "campaign of denial." As Greenpeace has documented meticulously over the years with its ExxonSecrets website, ExxonMobil is known to have invested over $23 million since 1998 to bankroll an entire movement of climate confusionists, including over 35 anti-science and right wing nonprofits, to divert attention away from the critical threat of climate disruption caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels.

The report, authored by Greenpeace climate campaigner Cindy Baxter, calls out by name a number of key climate skeptics and deniers who have worked with industry front groups to confuse the public, including S. Fred Singer , John Christy , Richard Lindzen , David Legates , Sallie Baliunas , Willie Soon , Tim Ball , Pat Michaels and many other figures familiar to DeSmog Blog readers.

A number of the key “think tanks” at the forefront of the attacks on climate science - including the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute – are also examined for their climate denial work on behalf of oil and coal interests.

Greenpeace explains how the network of denial was created in the early 1990s to dissuade politicians from taking action to prevent climate change. Chief among these early groups were the Global Climate Coalition, the Climate Council and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE).

The report also provides a brief history of the attacks launched against each of the IPCC’s scientific assessment reports dating back to 1990, noting the key players involved in each successive attack leading up to the present day attempts to tarnish the IPCC’s reputation and to falsely suggest that a debate still exists among climate scientists.

Personal attacks endured by climate scientists, especially key contributors to the IPCC reports, are also discussed in some detail, including the virulent attacks by the climate denial industry against reputed scientists like Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth.

Greenpeace also calls out Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and other members of Congress who are beholden to polluting industries through campaign contributions, and who regularly aid and abet the climate denial industry by promoting the false and misleading claims of deniers and skeptics on Capitol Hill.

Finally, “Dealing in Doubt” notes the escalation of the denial campaign during the administration of George W. Bush, when key White House and regulatory agency positions were filled with polluter lobbyists.
The placement of Philip Cooney , a lawyer and lobbyist who spent 15 years at the American Petroleum Institute before he was picked as chief of staff in the Bush White House Council on Environmental Quality, serves as a key example. Days after the New York Times broke the story that Cooney had made extensive edits on government scientific reports on global warming, Cooney resigned to go work for ExxonMobil.

“Dealing in Doubt” is recommended reading for anyone looking for a brief primer on the history of the denial industry’s relentless campaign against science and reason. It should be required reading for members of Congress, the mainstream media, and others who continue to be duped by the climate denial industry.

Source
 
Avro
#19
Tim Ball: Your source for lies, slander and misleading climate "science"

Dr. Tim Ball, a man famous for lying about his resume , and for denying that he quite willingly works for oil-funded think tanks , nevertheless continues to find an audience, slandering actual climate scientists and misrepresenting - in the most manipulative way - the state of climate science.
His most recent attack is all the more stunning for having been launched during a week when the British House of Commons released a report exonerating one of Ball's targets, Dr. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the East Anglia University.
In one of Ball's regular contributions to the conspiracy-theory website Canada Free Press , he begins with this:
"Few understand the extent of corrupted science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Data was altered, or completely ignored and research deliberately directed to prove their claim that humans were causing global warming."
Ball's evidence for the charge of "corrupted science"? None, really. His proof that data were altered or ignored? Zero. Rather, Ball goes on to build a complicated case about whether the best climate scientists in the world are subject to "groupthink."
To Ball's credit, this actually feels for a while like a careful analysis. He pulls out the usual symptoms of groupthink (as originally described by Irving Janus) and then cherry picks apparently relevant quotes from the now-famous stolen East Anglia emails to support his argument.
But even here Ball screws it up. In fact, his quotes often completely disprove his thesis. Take this section for example:
Not expressing your true feelings. On the October 14, 2009 (Kevin) Trenberth expresses something to Tom Wigley that none of them ever dared say in public. (")How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
A travesty? If this is Kevin Trenberth hiding his true feelings, you probably don't want to be around when he lets loose. But then, Ball knows full well that the conversation among these scientists has been blistering, forthright and sometimes harshly critical. He quoted this excerpt from Dr. Keith Briffa in a previous CFP article :
I have just read this lettter (sic) - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. ...
On 22nd September 1999 Briffa again confronted Mann in a long email that included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed. Mann appeared to back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil (Jones) have both raised some very good points."
There seems little evidence here of groupthink. Rather, it seems that these guys are fiercely critical of one another and - in the case of Mann, especially - incredibly big about hearing that criticism and responding in a professional manner.
Of course, it might be easy for Mann to be big. He has been vindicated not just by a committee of review at his own university (Penn State), but also by steadily accumulating body of science that has confirmed the accuracy of his iconic "hockey stick" graph.
The annoying part is that Ball knows this - or he would if he had even a passing interest in climate science. His interest, however, appears limited to self promotion and to doing the bidding of his corporate funders.
The frightening part is that people keep listening to him. Ball recently enjoyed a little airtime on a regional Joy TV program called The Standard, to which he was invited by the producer Jonathan Roth. When questioned recently as to why he chose Ball, Roth said he couldn't find anyone else who would stand up for the "other side" in the climate change "debate."
That should tell you something. If this is the best spokester available - if you have to rely on someone whose record for accuracy and integrity is decidedly in the dumpster - wouldn't that be a reasonable time to conclude that the "debate" is a sham?
Rhetorical question. Woeful that people like Roth are still struggling with the answer.
 
Avro
#20
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
 
ironsides
#21
When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it's all over
No people on earth are more righteously Green than the Germans. They built the foundations and set the tone of the modern Green movement in, ahem, the 1930s. They invented the phrase Atomkraft Nein Danke. They were the first country to allow nasty, dangerous Sixties eco-radicals to reinvent themselves as respectable politicians. They were the first place to buy, wholesale, into the solar power con, which is why so many of their rooves – especially on churches – shimmer and glow like reflective-coated crusties at a mid-Nineties rave, while the German taxpayer is ruing the day his government ever chose to subsidise (Achtung Herr Cameron!) this fantastically pointless scheme… (Hat tip: Robert Groezinger, et al)
So when the Germans say “Auf Wiedersehn AGW” it really is time for the rest of the world to sit up and take notice. And that’s exactly what they just have said. See for yourself in this tear-inducing glorious feature in one of their leading newspapers.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100032460/when-the-germans-give-up-on-agw-you-really-do-know-its-all-over/
 
Walter
#22
Very credible source.
 
AnnaG
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it's all over

Um, sorry, Ironsides, but I clicked the link and the first thing I saw after what the link is about, I saw this
Quote:

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books ...

and I have to mention that anyone who says they are right about everything make me suspicious.
 
AnnaG
#24
Get a grip people, if you want to convince anyone about anything, don't post editorials from journalists. They are no more expert about climate than you, me, or Daffy Duck.
 
Lineman
#25
Daffy's comment: "This is dethspicable"
 
Avro
#26
YouTube - Whats up with Watts -- Mirror
 
Avro
#27
Fox News' Ed Barnes Tries To Re-Ignite Attacks on Climate
Scientist Exonerated byPenn State


In his “exclusive” story, titled “Top Climate Scientist's Exoneration Won't Be the Last Word,” Fox News’ Ed Barnes suggests that the Penn State investigation that cleared Dr. Michael Mann of any wrong-doing was a “whitewash” designed to protect the “millions of dollars in grant money it gets by having Mann on the faculty.”

Barnes claims that Penn State’s decision to exonerate Mann generated “a storm of controversy” and “came under severe attack.” Reading his inflammatory language, you might think that a whole lot of academics and scientists ridiculed the inquiry. Who is this angry mob that generated such a “storm of controversy?”

Actually, the Barnes storm is comprised of only three people - a mining executive, the wealthiest member of Congress, and a former FoxNews.com columnist.

The former FoxNews.com contributor, Steve “The Junkman” Milloy , is better known for his role as apologist and shill for the tobacco, chemical, mining and oil industries than for his expertise critiquing university review boards. What are Milloy’s qualifications to serve as judge and jury in denouncing a highly-regarded university’s review process? Milloy runs JunkScience.com , a website that defies all manner of scientific realities, arguing that everything from DDT to secondhand smoke to asbestos is perfectly healthy for you.

The second is blogger Steve McIntyre , creator of ClimateAudit.org and 30-year veteran of the mining business. Some may consider McIntyre qualified to attack Michael Mann, since he's gone to great lengths along with Ross McKitrick to attack Dr. Mann . Both of their Mann-eater papers were re-published and distributed by the ExxonMobil-funded George C. Marshall Institute . McIntyre says he’s more interested in mining these days than climate science, unless it’s about Michael Mann of course.

The third is the wealthiest member of Congress, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), whose net worth is north of $250 million thanks to his success as CEO of Directed Electronics and its “Viper” car alarm. (That’s actually Issa’s voice barking ''please step away from the car.” ) But how exactly is this successful former CEO, Army veteran and holder of a bachelor’s degree in business administration qualified to question the work of a highly-regarded climate scientist?

Though certainly known for stormy behavior and severe attacks, do these three men really constitute a “storm of controversy?”

I suppose when you throw in a dash of the right-wing Commonwealth Foundation (which released a 12-page policy brief ripping Penn State for exonerating Mann), and a sprinkle of the right-wing-on-training-wheels Young Americans for Freedom (which launched a petition to re-investigate Mann), then in Ed Barnes’ world you can safely forecast a raging storm with a 100% chance of severe attacks.

Barnes even slapped an “Exclusive” tag on his new piece , hoping to catch new readers, even though the content is largely rehashed from his two-month-old article from February , featuring the same quote from Steve Milloy and same argument from Steve McIntyre. That’s pretty exclusive, indeed.

Barnes and others at Fox News have played a central role in the “Climategate” echo chamber , providing a megaphone for skeptics trying to spin the stolen CRU emails into scandal every which way , and continuing the long smear campaign against Michael Mann.

Despite all their rants, the inquiries into Mann and the CRU scientists have found no evidence of the data tampering or interference with information requests that FOX and friends hoped would emerge from their “ClimateGate” dud. They can’t tolerate the fact that Dr. Mann and Phil Jones and others have been largely vindicated. So they resort back to spin. And when that doesn’t pan out , they spin again .

It’s dizzying just trying to follow it, really.
 
Avro
#28
Response by the University of East Anglia to the Report by Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel

Wed, 14 Apr 2010
UEA welcomes the Report by the Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel, both in respect of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being cleared of any scientific impropriety and dishonesty, and the suggestions made for improvement in some other areas.
The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.

It is gratifying to us that the Oxburgh Report points out that CRU has done a public service of great value by carrying out meticulous work on temperature records when it was unfashionable and attracted little scientific interest, and that the Unit has been amongst the leaders in international efforts to determine the overall uncertainty in the derived temperature records. Similarly, the Report emphasises that all of CRU’s published research on the global land-based instrumental temperature record included detailed descriptions of uncertainties and appropriate caveats. We also welcome the confirmation that, although some have accused CRU of trying to mislead, the Unit’s published research emphasises the late 20th Century discrepancy between tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature and instrumental observations.

The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances (although it was pointed out that different methods may not have produced different results). Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.

Another area for suggested improvement is in the archiving of data and algorithms, and in recording exactly what was done. Although no-one predicted the import of this pioneering research when it started in the mid-1980’s, it is now clear that more effort needs to be put into this activity. CRU, and other parts of the climate science community, are already making improvements in these regards, and the University will continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained.

The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review investigation is underway, and therefore some important issues are still under active consideration. This document is our immediate written response to the Oxburgh Report. In the coming weeks we shall be considering precisely how we act upon the detailed findings of the Oxburgh Report, together with the findings of the parliamentary select committee and, in due course, the Independent Muir Russell review report.

We are grateful to Lord Oxburgh, and his international expert team, for the fair, efficient and prompt way in which they conducted their Assessment.

Use this link to read the Science Assessment Panel Report .
 
Avro
#29
Tim Ball concert: Battered by the facts.

Canadian denier-in-chief, the retired geographer Dr. Tim Ball, got seriously (though not physically) roughed up last week in a presentation to the University of Victoria Young Conservatives Club.
Apparently expecting a room full of docile Stephen Harper fans, Ball found himself instead in front of a group of burgeoning climate scientists - young people who were quick to challenge him when he said things that were pointedly untrue.
For example, after describing the effect of Milankovitch cycles on climate, Ball told the students that these predictable changes in Earth's orbit and tilt are not included in modern climate models.
"None of this is included in the computer models that are used to tell you that the climate is changing.56:24 It’s not even included. The models they’re doing here on campus. They’re not in there. Sorry."
But at 1:01:25, a student responds: "We do include it, though. I am with the UVic climate lab and we do include it in our models. It’s a standard parameter."
The conversation, and the attached recording (NB: With my apologies, the record exceeds the DSB capacity; I will convene with the tech experts tomorrow and try to get it posted), went on for two-and-a-half painful hours, with Ball dismissing all climate science as a fiction promulgated by a small group of ideologues and the students - laptops in hand - challenging and dismissing his arguments on the basis of ready information.
At times, though, it ground down to the typical denier debate, with Ball saying things that aren't true, being correcting, but refusing to acknowledge his inaccuracy.

For example, beginning at 1:21:20, he launches into a whole disquisition about how real scientists have been hamstrung by the IPCC because the politicians involved drew terms of reference that were ruinously restrictive:
"When it appears that the politicians are doing the honorable thing and having an arms length not political investigation, well they’re not doing that at all," Ball began.
"Here’s what Maurice Strong did with the IPCC: he defined a changing climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity. Don’t look at what nature’s doing, only at what the human causes are."
Student: (unintelligible)
Ball: "Yes, but they don’t look at the natural climate variability."
Student sotto voce “not true, we look at natural variation”
Ball, offering a new slide: "This is the definition produced by the United Nations Environment Program which was then adopted by the IPCC. This is the definition of what they’re directed to look at. They’re directed to only look at climate change that is due to human activity."
Student: “What about that whole second half (of the definition printed on the slide): ‘in addition to natural climate variability.’”
Ball: "Yeah, but they don’t do that."
Student: "But it just says to do it."
Ball: "You look at the list of forcings they have; it’s only those forcings caused by human activity."
Student: "You’re saying that volcanoes are caused by humans?"
Ball: "Well exactly. The volcanoes is one and look at the thing I showed you with Milankovich."
Student: "Yeah, but the IPCC accounts for volcanic activity AND Milankovich cycles."

Ball: "They identify them, but they do not consider them in their models …."
Student: "They certainly do …."
Ball: "No then don’t …."
Student: "Yes they do: I run models … ((interrupted)"
It's worth noting that Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis and whose models is one of the best in the world, works and teaches at UVic and employs some of his students to help run his models. If Tim Ball wanted to make up information about what is considered in computer models, he was doing it in the wrong venue."
Ball said many other silly things during the course of the "lecture." And many things that have previously been proved untrue. For instance, he said that it is "simply not true" that he has been paid by oil companies, regardless tha t time and again , people have tracked the source of his income to oil and gas companies or energy industry lobby groups.
But the most offensive moments come when Ball accuses OTHER people of irresponsibility.
"Don’t get me wrong, if you want to play with your models in the lab, that’s fine. But you have a scientific responsibility which I happen to think you’re not fulfilling. But when you go public with your models and say your model works and you have to base your whole policy for the world on this, that’s a whole different responsibility."
So, Tim Ball thinks it's okay to make public policy on the basis of uninformed criticism of models he has never studied. He argues that 17th century paintings are all the evidence he needs to demonstrate that current warming is natural and not a problem. He says things that are not true and then refuses to acknowledge his error when corrected. And he yet he feels confident to criticize the ethics of the best scientists currently working in the field.
It's appalling.
 
Avro
#30
Media Outlets Falsely Reporting Scientific Fraud Should Make Corrections

Ideologically motivated and often well-funded operatives were quick to broadcast the hacked East Anglia emails in November as ‘the biggest scandal of the century.’ Thanks to a UK parliamentary investigation , and an earlier Penn State investigation , we are reminded that the emails revealed no such scandal.

We can expect that the industry-funded think tanks would go all out to spread any story that fits into their narrative of denying climate science. More alarming are the reporters that swallowed the bait and reported on the manufactured scandal in a fake debate.

We should be expecting apologies and corrections from these reporters for taking the hints of ‘scandal’ and ‘fraud’ and reporting on them as fact:
  • Bret Stephen in the WSJ hinted that global warming scientists were “closet Stalinists”? (The seems to have been removed, but did he apologise for it?) 12/8/2009
  • Andrew Bolt in the Melbourne Herald Sun : “Climategate: Warmist conspiracy exposed?” 11/20/2009
  • James Dellingpole in the Telegraph : “The Final Nail in the Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming” 11/20/2009
  • Leo Hickman and James Randerson in The Guardian : “Files stolen. Evidence of collusion among scientists”
  • Lauren Morello writing for Climatewire and picked up in the NYTimes : “Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics” 11/24/2009
  • The Freakonomics blog on the NYTimes : “Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal, answers questions from the BBC.” 2/18/2010
  • Fred Guteri in Newsweek : “Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.” 2/19/2010
Even though it generates lots of web-views, taking quotes out of context from illegally obtained information and then implying global implications is irresponsible. Calmly investigating the claims, as the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has done, and finding the science sound is to be applauded.

The imputation of fraud was so powerful that environmental reporters who should have known better were caught up in it.
  • Andy Revkin in the NYTimes says “Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute” even though he knows the ‘climate dispute’ only exists as part of the big-oil PR campaign.
  • George Monbiot was correctly advocating for a louder and more aggressive response on the part of scientists to affirm the established understanding of global warming during the scandal. But he was also calling for Phil Jones resignation and expressing dismay over the practices of the research unit.
Legitimate news organizations have standards of accuracy to uphold and should correct the record. Fossil-fuel industry funded organizations don't, so we're not holding our breath waiting for the paid deniers to retract their statements and report on the scientific consensus:
  • CEI ’s Chris Horner salivated over the supposed ‘ blue dress moment ’ of the stolen emails, even writing on thanksgiving how thankful he was for the hackers ‘exposing’ the nefarious plot to solve global warming. Surely his thanksgiving memories must taste a bit sour as he find out how conclusive the science on climate change is.
  • Perhaps the oh-so-royal Lord Monckton will apologize for stating so bluntly in an op-ed “They are criminals” referring to the climate scientists who were victims of the email theft.
  • Senator James Inhofe will need his imaginary crowbar to pull out the imaginary nails in the coffin. He wrote in a Wall Street Journal Op-ed that "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."
  • Myron Ebell of CEI wrote on Pajamas Media that “It is clear that the tip-top scientists implicated in the burgeoning Climategate scandal have no honor, but it is also becoming apparent that they have no sense of shame either.”
  • Nick Lorris of the Heritage Foundation desperately wishes it was true that the “Global warming debate heats up” on the Heritage blog after the scandal.
  • Pat Michaels of the CATO institute glowed every time he was reminded that some climate scientists joked about beating him up. See his big smile as he’s given a megaphone on Fox News ( video here ).
No, instead of retracting their statements, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is trying to build another fake-scandal on the imaginary foundations of the first.

For the past two months CEI has repeatedly tried to ‘break’ the story that NASA data they obtained through a FOIA request is just as damning and scandalous. They obtained the files on Dec 31st of 2009 and since have
made three attempts to create a media story. The third one has picked up a little steam, finally getting into Fox News with the headline “NASA Data Worse Than Climategate Data, Space Agency Admits”. It’s ironic that they would pin their story on the East Anglia data that was thoroughly exonerated today by the UK Parliament's report.
Lastly, some outlets today chose to highlight the problems in the report, which finds fault with how the University of East Anglia handled the FOIA requests, and recommends solutions. See headlines in the New Scientist "Climategate Inquiry Points Finger at University," Financial Times "Phil Jones, but not Climate Science Practices Exonerated" and the Mail Online "Climategate University Condemned for Unacceptable Culture of Secrecy."
 

Similar Threads

60
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Oct 19th, 2018
2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008