“Not so fast, let’s see what we’ve got here..,”
I think that’s been the request of everyone over the last few weeks when it comes to ‘climategate’. Well, everyone except every conservative on the planet. To them this was Christmas morning and they were foolish children who could not wait another second to open their presents. Conservatives like Sen Inhofe who thinks that global warming is grand hoax, rejoiced a these emails because now global warming is over and done, that they won and we lost and those who believed it can get a ‘real life’.Yes, the world got together and conspired to perpetuate this hoax upon the entire world so Al Gore could get an Oscar and to make George Bush look bad.
Ok, that’s silly. I really don’t know why the world would want to create this ‘hoax’ that we as human race were hurting the planet, much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.
When the news of the emails broke, there was an outcry from the conservative mainstream media that liberal news wasn’t covering the story. It took Jon Stewart about 30 seconds to disprove this theory, but if there’s one thing we know about today’s conservatives it’s that they don’t want to be held to a standard of truth themselves, they just want to hold everyone else to an impeachable standard. Besides, they just knew global warming was bunk. How did they know you wonder? Well Sean Hannity tells us that it’s not real because it snowed in Huston.
Wow, you mean global warming is a hoax because it got cold in winter time? Well, I’m convinced…or I would be if I was a conservative. But I’m not and it’s not because I have some kind of agenda. In my opinion global warming is a bummer. Not only because of the effects on the planet but also because of the effects on my lifestyle. I enjoy all my electrical amenities, my small SUV, my virgin toilet paper and my beef. So global warming is an inconvenience to my personal lifestyle and I would love to bury my head in the sand and forget about it. But living on the east coast of Florida and seeing the increased numbers,frequency and sheer size of some of the last few hurricane not to mention the heat? Holy shit, this past June was the hottest we’ve have… ever, and it’s 10 days before Christmas and we’re still having almost 90 degree temperatures. So no, I can’t afford to ignore something of this nature because like it or not, this has been the hottest decade recorded.
Back to the emails. It wasn’t a ‘liberal’ media conspiracy to hide the news of the stolen emails, it was an effort to say “Hold on a second, lets see what we have here before we get all weepy with joy at catching someone red-handed”, you would think atleast Sarah Palin would have been on the side of those showing restraint. Since she’s condemned the media for making things up ,you’d think she’d want them to get it right.. But this kind of story is like crack to a crackhead, so of course the conservative mainstream media was jonesing to exploit,misrepresent, and bastardize it.
Thankfully we have real journalist who did wait, who did investigate and who did not jump on the tea-bagging bandwagon..
Review: E-mails show pettiness,
not fraud
Climate experts, AP reporters
go through 1,000 exchanges
LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press
.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change
Yes Virginia, 5 reporters and seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy have weighed in and it’s not global warming that’s bunk, it’s the believers and pushers of ‘Climate-gate’ who have been found wanting. But even knowing this, will the vast conservative media network still shill for the oil companies and play to their ‘drill baby drill’ base? You Betcha!
Related articles by Zemanta
- AP Study Shows Climategate Does NOT Disprove Climate Claims (alan.com)
- Sen. Inhofe Pushes The Crooked Science Argument About Climate Change After Wallace Said This Decade Warmest One Ever. (crooksandliars.com)
- Palin Denies Her Previous Stance On Climate Change (alan.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
The Velvet StraitJacket 
December 15th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Congrats on another well written piece, but on the facts? Not, as they say, so fast…
First of all, my blog :
http://thevsj.com/stormy-fall-weather-for-global-warming
I did not say or imply that this was some sort of massive conspiracy. CRU scientists conspiring to fire editors who allowed papers to be published that the CRU types opposed is fully supported by the emails. As far as I know, that’s the only “conspiracy” I referenced. It’s telling that you can’t understand how AGW could be false unless it’s a conspiracy. Believe it or not, people of like mind can come together and work together without a hierarchical structure and some Mister Big calling the shots.
As to Jon Stewart being part of the mainstream news media… well, he is the leader of the Democratic Party so you may have a point, but the email hacking story broke on November 20th and Stewart’s bit was on December 1st. I loved his quote, “Poor Al Gore- Global Warming debunked by the internet you invented.” The first big 3 network mention? December 4th on NBC News; 15 days after the story broke.
Do you think it takes the MSM over two weeks to confirm a story? The AP put 12 reporters to fact check Palin’s book, but only 5 to review emails totaling up to a million words. It’s priorities after all. I could only wish the media was so careful! What really took so long was coming up with the proper cover story. They didn’t want to address the issue until they could control the debate, or try to. I think they waited too long in this case.
The lead AP writer on your story, Seth Borenstein, is totally dishonest on this issue in my opinion. He has a long history of global warming alarmism, and worse, he is part of the CRU cozy email gang:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?page=1&pp=25&kw=borenstein
Riddle me this: What kind of news organization allows a reporter to do a story in which he is himself apart, and then not even disclosing it?
And of course, he didn’t even mention the revelations about the computer models, was a big part of my blog. Nothing to see here…
But even Borenstein confirms that the CRU sat on it’s data, which is a major part of the problem. I say, let all the data out, let all the researchers who want to look at it. If the fate of the planet is riding on this, why wouldn’t you? If the piecemeal data that is available is showing major flaws, like the Darwin station data I posted about on the Muche, don’t you think that raw data needs to be re-looked at?
December 15th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
1st, I didn’t say anything about you and a conspiracy so you can stop with that argument anytime you’d like..
2nd.. like it or not, Inhofe did say it was a great hoax, watch the attached video.. and that does beg the question of.. how did the entire world conspire to keep this hoax a secret.. again, blame Inhofe not me..
3rd, wwhere did I say anything about Stewart breaking the story of climategate, I said he proved in 30 sec that the “liberal” media was reporting on it, which brings me to 4..I will give you the link and then you can retract your misapplication of his quote of
“Poor Al Gore- Global Warming debunked by the internet you invented.”
because it was so blatantly satirical when he said it, that only the idiots from Fox and friends would use it as honest to God’s truth..
seriously, you’re saying I’m lacking fact and you’re actually telling people that he really meant that when he said it? Say it ain’t so..
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data
seriously, keeping the opinion that he meant what he was saying, even after watching it for yourself…would forever damage your credibility my friend..
while viewing that, maybe you’ll notice the news clip just before he says the now famously raped quote.. ayup, it’s from CNN on 11/25 and it’s all about the emails..
huh that sure does something for this statement from you also
The first big 3 network mention? December 4th on NBC News; 15 days after the story broke.
doesn’t it..
Seriously, stop getting your news quotes from Fox it’s making you look bad.. and they’ve been busted too many times lately making up the news and photo-editing…
but back to me? problems with the facts? I don’t think so..
and finally, if I’ve got this right.. the AP is now untrustworthy.. and 7 experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy are also unethical and untrustworthy..
who do you trust in your world if even the AP is untrustworthy now..
oh yeah, you used the Fox and Friends photoshopped quote.. that answers that question then..
December 16th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
One at a time…
“1st, I didn’t say anything about you and a conspiracy so you can stop with that argument anytime you’d like..”
From your blog:
“…much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.”
Sounds to me you were trying to wrap me in your list of conspiracy mongers.
“2nd.. like it or not, Inhofe did say it was a great hoax, watch the attached video.. and that does beg the question of.. how did the entire world conspire to keep this hoax a secret..”
I don’t care what others say. That should be obvious at this point. I was only concerned about you trying to implicate me as a conspiracy nut.
“3rd, wwhere did I say anything about Stewart breaking the story of climategate, I said he proved in 30 sec that the “liberal” media was reporting on it”
What you said was: “When the news of the emails broke, there was an outcry from the conservative mainstream media that liberal news wasn’t covering the story. It took Jon Stewart about 30 seconds to disprove this theory”
I think you are referring to the CNN clip? OK, I guess I stand corrected. CNN reported it earlier than Stewart’s bit. I guess I should have been more specific on that. I was thinking of the “Big Three” but I didn’t actually say that. So there you go, correction noted.
Now, to number “4..I will give you the link and then you can retract your misapplication of his quote of
“Poor Al Gore- Global Warming debunked by the internet you invented.”
because it was so blatantly satirical when he said it, that only the idiots from Fox and friends would use it as honest to God’s truth.. ”I’m not retracting anything on that. Of course I knew it was satirical! Its Stewart after all, he hasn’t left the faith. I did think it’s was a funny line. Frankly, I’m surprised that you thought I thought Stewart was being serious. He is not going to become an apostate and lose his followers over a good one liner.
Sorry, none of my sources for my blog or my reply to yours was from FOX.
But seriously, to me you would dare say, “who do you trust in your world if even the AP is untrustworthy now..”
Good grief, I have not trusted the AP in years! They have been up to all kinds of shenanigans. If you trust their ethicists so much, then address the issue I brought up: The AP let a reporter who was part of the story fact check it. How can that not be a breach of journalistic ethics? I’m just a blogger and I know better than that. Seriously, that’s OK by you?
December 17th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I love it when lilInhofe has his lilbackside pushed against the wall and (unsucessfully) tries to defend his lame arguments!
It’s also amusing to see him criticize the AP (historically known to be right-leaning), in a rare departure from bias in their investigation, especially when he says the author is an “alarmist”.
I seem to recall multitudes of spurious sources used by the lilalarmist who take the term “alarmist” to an entirely new level, particularly when discussing climate change.
Curiously absent from this conversation about climate change is the profound effect of man’s raping of the forests of the world and it’s direct impact on C02.
It’s difficult to clean the carpets when the vacumn cleaner is thrown out, ya know???
December 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Ok, I looked.. it seems the problem the right has with Seth is that he called people he was supposed to be interviewing/investigating by their 1st names, and this one lined email..
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
since it’s not in proper English, but more ‘familiar’ then his “integrity and ethical behavior” are lacking..wow, that is pretty serious.. I’m stunned that he is even a reporter with the AP, they should revoke his credentials immediately for calling someone by their name and using the words ‘Whatchya’ because if there is any medium where informality is inexcusable, it’s email..
are you kidding me? That is proof that the AP lied and is in on this ‘hoax’?
ya know, if we remove mr.Borenstein we’re still left with 4 other reporters and 7 experts in ethics,research and policy .. but I guess they are ‘in on it’ too?
btw, I now stand corrected… you are irrevocably and unequivocally a ‘conspiracy theorist’ on this issue.. since you are now seeing conspirators everywhere you turn..
this is a dead issue.. you will not see the truth because you want to believe so badly, you spoke of believers and their ‘faith’… my friend, you are a sheep among them.. only your faith is in non-belief and you will find fault with anyone who shows you the truth..
seriously, you’re going to get twisted over a reporter calling the people he interviewed by their 1st names and that he used slang with them in an informal email?
wow… where was this strick ‘ethical’ standards during the haliburton days? beside denying any ‘wink-wink’ at all on that issue I mean..
you and the bottom, have just met..
December 17th, 2009 at 10:35 am
From your blog:
“…much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.”
Sounds to me you were trying to wrap me in your list of conspiracy mongers.
let’s try the whole quote instead K?
Yes, the world got together and conspired to perpetuate this hoax upon the entire world so Al Gore could get an Oscar and to make George Bush look bad.
Ok, that’s silly. I really don’t know why the world would want to create this ‘hoax’ that we as human race were hurting the planet, much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.
you were lumped in with those thinking the world got together to create a hoax upon the world and then kept it quiet..
just wanted to clarify, at that point.. even though you saw the science community involved in a conspiracy, I’ll give it to you that weren’t by definition a conspiracy theorist..
it was the AP/email thing that change that..
December 17th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I thought I had made clear what my objection was to Borenstein fact checking those emails in which he took part, not bad grammar or calling scientists by their first names. I guess you would have no problem with Sean Hannity being named a special prosecutor to investigate possible war crimes of the Bush administration. I think he and Borenstein might come to a similar conclusion. Really, you totally mischaracterized my objection to that bogus bit of “fact-checking.” Sorry, you just can’t be part of the story, and then write up the story.
And of course you didn’t address the issue his “fact checking” forgot: the climate model data. If that’s not right, then AGW is not right. It’s as simple as that. That was one of my main points in both my blog and in my previous reply to your blog, and in the emails, which Borenstein didn’t of course address. His and your spin on this is “OK, some of these scientists may have been a little rude, but hey the science is sound.” I don’t care about their personal snits, the problem is their science isn’t sound. And they don’t want anyone double checking their work. That’s some fact checking we could benefit from.
Even though I have gone out of my way to emphasize that it’s not a conspiracy, you continue to paint me as a conspiracy nut because… that’s how you view the world. If you were on my side of the issue, you would see a conspiracy everywhere with this, based on your previous history. That’s just your worldview. But don’t impinge my views with your prejudices.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
You said in you reply
The AP let a reporter who was part of the story fact check it. How can that not be a breach of journalistic ethics? I’m just a blogger and I know better than that. Seriously, that’s OK by you?
so I checked to see just how he was ‘part of the story’.. and he was ‘part of the story’ because as the AP science guy, he had emailed questions to 3 scientists.. and that’s where the shit hit the fan..wattsupwiththat blog was just so damn mad because he was just so familiar that he couldn’t possibly be an ethical journalist.. and the fact that he’s been the AP science guy who of course believes in GW made him also a truly biased choice..
*rollseyes*
and your Hannity example.. umm no, try it would be like having Lynn Swan report on the days events at OJ’s trial.. Or Jose Canseco call a baseball game.. as long theykept to the facts, I don’t see why they couldn’t get the story out there correctly..
same with the AP guy
and you are still ignoring the 4 other reporters and 7 experts.. so cmon, what is the excuse for them?
Mike, you believe there are forces out there getting together to hide real truth from you and the rest of the world on this issue.. you believe that people like the AP are using biased journalism when they tell you ‘there’s really nothing to see here’, you started this whole affair off by spreading the misunderstanding that none of the big MSM liberal networks were reporting it and in fact ignoring and thus hiding the story..
not to mention the underlying belief that the world has been ‘hoaxed’.. you don’t call it a conspiracy only because of your distaste of being labeled a conspiracy theorists.. but what else is it? you are claiming people got together in an effort to make people believe something that was not true..
seriously… the definitions of conspiracy
1-the act of conspiring.. Yep you think we’ve got that in the liberal MSM in not reporting the story, the AP in covering up the story and the science community hiding the facts
2- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. … once again, same thing
3- a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose.. again, same thing
4- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. and same thing
this is not just because you think I view the world as a conspiracy.. I resisted calling it a conspiracy also and called it a hoax.. but after the AP thing, it’s not longer a hoax b/c now you are saying there is an effort not only with the scientists, not only with the politicians and whole governments, not only with the liberal press, but now even the world renowned AP are in a concentrated effort to deceive..or hide.. or plot against..or yes, conspire!
but just to see the word-play you will use.. what exactly do you call it? a hoax that a few funny men played on everyone?
December 18th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
If you can’t see the ethical issue with the AP letting one of their reporters fact check a case in which he was personally involved, then I can’t explain it to you. It’s NOT like Jose Canseco calling a baseball game. It would be more like Jose Canseco betting on a game he’s playing in. I see conflict of interest doesn’t exist in your world.
I really don’t see why you insist on mischaracterizing me as conspiracy nut on this issue. We both know the charge falls flat. I assume it goes to your worldview, that we could not be where we are on AGW (virtually all governments and MSM supporting it) unless it was either true or there was a diabolical conspiracy involved. Again, I at this point, after everything I’ve written on it, I doubt I can explain it to you. Seeing beyond your own worldview is damnably difficult.
Anyway, you know at this point I don’t want to talk you out of your belief in AGW. At this point, I want everyone who believes to continue to believe. So don’t stop believing wooah ohh…
December 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
**cough** **cough**
“Curiously absent from this conversation about climate change is the profound effect of man’s raping of the forests of the world and it’s direct impact on C02.”
December 18th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
why won’t you answer what exactly this whole thing is then,what word would you give it?
how about this, was there an effort by multiple people for the purpose of hiding,changing, or limiting data/truth from others?
if the answer to that is yes, then great.. it’s a conspiracy..
if the answer is no, great.. then tell me what it is..
I see where it could be a conflict if the AP guy was the only one doing the ‘fact checking’ and he had some faulty reports before..but, as I would trust Christiane Amanpour to give a proper investigative report into a scandal involving CNN journalists in Afghanistan, I trust this person also..not just because it’s the fucking AP, which is a big deal whether you believe them or not, seeing as they are 1/2 of the world wide news, Reuters being the other 1/2(which I suppose doctors their news too.. gee fucking willy, amazing that I, the one who you claim sees conspiracy everywhere, doesn’t see them in the 2 most trusted names in news, but you do..) but also because there are 4 other reporters plus 7 experts.. you have not shown their biased, or why they have reason to make this whole report up so how in the hell do you expect me throw out their findings? you can fucking ignore them like they don’t count..and then condemn me b/c I won’t? Nu-uh…
How can you just skip right over them and ignoring them altogether… granted you do that on purpose because you don’t have an answer for them so it’s just better to not bring them up in your argument… and I flat out loath when you do that and quite frankly, find it cowardly.. I always answer your questions, you’ve begrudgingly admitted as much quite a few times on muche…. but you? just pretend like you never heard me each time I’ve asked the same question over and over..
you’re doing it with the other reporters/experts and what would you call this whole thing if not a conspiracy..
instead you repeat…‘it’s a question of ethics for the AP science reporter to fact check scientific data’ and ‘Your worldview is seeing conspiracies, not mine‘ ad nauseum instead of answering that which was really asked of you..
well.. so be it! stay in your ‘robo-mike’ mode…I’m tired of asking..
December 18th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
shit Howie, the AP’s biased, this isn’t a conspiracy, there is no man made global warming, we don’t need the trees and co2 isn’t harmful
don’t you know that already.. hell it’s as plain as day because the AP let their science reporter fact check science documents..and the scientist hid and fudged their data to make Al Gore rich..
*rollseyes*
December 19th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
First of all…
Howey, how is it that you find the lack of any mention of “mans raping of the forest” as being “curiously absent?” Neither my blog nor ekg’s addressed that. Of the hundreds of thousands of points that could be made on global warming, sadly, most of those were left out as well. A curious absence? Or not relevant to the subject at hand? I’ll leave that to you to puzzle out.
Second of all…
No. I would not trust Christine Amanpour to investigate a scandal involving CNN reporters. That is just too big a conflict of interest. Maybe this is where our disagreement lies. I just can’t see the results of such an investigation not being tainted in some way. That’s why in government they have the Inspector General system, to try to remove the people reporting and conducting the investigation from the chain of command. Of course, this administration has figured out a work around to that…
You know you wouldn’t trust the results of a Scooter Libby led investigation on the practices of the former Vice President would you? You can’t honestly investigate yourself. That is one of the reasons I regard that whole “fact check” of the Climategate emails as ridiculous.
It’s funny you brought up the other people involved in the fact check. Before I did my last comment on your post, I googled the scientists mentioned in the story and they were all AGW supporters. I’m not sure how that makes them “moderates” as they were called in the story. What is a climate change “moderate?”
I’m thinking the MSM should retire the moniker “fact check” since that clearly was not done in this case. What “fact” was actually checked? The one fact I wanted checked, the reliability of the models based on the “Harry read me text,” was never mentioned. I don’t care that one scientist called another one an ass, or that one guy was happy that a skeptic died. These “experts” didn’t address the most important thing in the release. They did address a lot of things that I don’t think anyone was really asking about though.
You seem to think I am not addressing questions that you feel are vitally important, so let me know if I’ve missed any:
“why won’t you answer what exactly this whole thing is then,what word would you give it?”
-this thing? See, this is why I don’t answer all your questions.
“how about this, was there an effort by multiple people for the purpose of hiding,changing, or limiting data/truth from others?”
–
-hiding data yes. At least the raw data. The CRU collected raw temp station data for years all over the world. Now they claim they only have the adjusted data. What ever reason they no longer have the original raw data, how can their work be reproduced? You can only work off the adjusted data.
-changing data yes. The difference in the raw station data that has been available and investigated, in Russia, Australia, and New Zealand, show that the adjusted data used by the CRU changes a raw data trend of lowering temps to one that shows rising ones. There may be a good reason to adjust the data, but if there is, shouldn’t the CRU say what that is? Science has to be reproducible. If other researchers are not getting the same results that the CRU is, shouldn’t there be an explanation?
Limiting data- yes. Even your fact checkers don’t deny that. They were fighting FOI requests to release their data.
Now to you this spells conspiracy. That’s why you are trying to nail me with the conspiracy theory moniker, but to me the difference is that they believe it. I don’t think they know it’s a lie and are trying to push a lie off as truth. I think they believe it, and that’s why the adjusted data points in a different direction than the raw data.
Let me give you an example from the “fact check.” Mike’s “nature trick.” Michael Mann, author of the discredited hockey stick, was using tree ring data to show increased temperatures. However after 1960 the tree ring data didn’t show rising temperatures. So Mann added adjusted temperature station data after 1960. This may not be fraud, but I can’t see how it’s not bad science. For one data set, you use one type of data, and then when the data is no longer showing you what you expect to see, you switch to a totally different type of data. If tree ring data is not accurate after 1960, why would you think it’s accurate before 1960? There should be two separate data sets, from the two different sources, not one, and since one doesn’t match the other, shouldn’t that be investigated? And of course the temp station data is the “adjusted” data.
I think really bad science is a much better description of what happened than conspiracy. So far we have:
Adjusted data which swings in a totally different direction than the raw data.
Data from different sources combined into single data sets.
NASA temp data being “adjusted” from showing the 90’s as the hottest decade in a century to the 1930’s.
If people really believe something, I think they can adjust out of their data what they want to see. That’s not conspiracy though, that’s religion.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:58 am
sorry for the edit of your reply, but it seemed apropos.. 😉
December 20th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Oh, lilTan…the raping of the forests has a lot to do with global warming…but I guess you believe it’s all another conspiracy theory.
btw – If you think it’s every American’s fundamental right to have global warming decided for them by someone who doesn’t have the background to understand it, you have a weird idea of rights. If I were in that situation, I would want a reporter who had a clue what the global warming issues were.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Nobody here was talking about global warming rape but you. Do a blog on AGW rape and I’ll be sure to comment on it, but otherwise, I don’t know where you are going with this.
If you think that Seth Borenstein has the scientific background that everyone else lacks… well he majored in Journalism in college, not one of the sciences. So my opinion is as good as his. Oh, who am I kidding? My opinion is WAY better than his!