Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think you are not seeing all of it. There is discussion in one email of how to hide the data that shows warming; there is discussion of throwing data away rather than letting the other side see it and try to prove them wrong; there is discussion of how to rig the journals so only articles that agree with them are published; there is discussion of how the science doesn't agree with what the IPCC wants to see and how to meet the two needs; there is discussion of how to stall FOI requests.
All of these are the conspiracy-theory interpretations of the emails out of context, several of which I disputed above. I'd like to see the emails you think show the purple and orange.
If your theory was the basis of discussion about trillion dollar government programs that dramatically alter the world's economy, then the standard of data keeping is a bit higher than if your research is finding out if the Coralis Maximus Area fires when you look at porn.
I'm really not sure which of those studies is more important.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 988
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes. The conclusion was that it had to do with the fact that it's WINTER.

Boom. It's on page 2 now.

Hmm. I wonder if anything significant has happened in the past 100 or so years that might affect global warming. I mean, I can't think of a single damn thing. Not one.

Posted Images

All of these are the conspiracy-theory interpretations of the emails out of context, several of which I disputed above. I'd like to see the emails you think show the purple and orange.
The one about throwing away data I can't find, the amount of info coming out grows by the day. If I see it again I will trot it out.The explanation above for the peer-review comment doesn't make any sense. If you think a paper is flawed, that's when you trust the peer-review process, not threaten to overturn it. The whole tone of all their emails is not of a group willing to discuss alternatives and have their data analyzed; the tone is that of a group that knows they are on shaky ground but will fight to defend it for as long as possible, at all costs. All the explanations I've seen so far fall way short of explaining not only the actual text of the emails, but more so the tone. We have peer-reviews at work; we don't threaten to kick out anyone who doesn't like the way we do it. Emails like those coming out of this would be grounds for firing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The one about throwing away data I can't find, the amount of info coming out grows by the day. If I see it again I will trot it out.
might be here:http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Link to post
Share on other sites
The one about throwing away data I can't find, the amount of info coming out grows by the day. If I see it again I will trot it out.The explanation above for the peer-review comment doesn't make any sense. If you think a paper is flawed, that's when you trust the peer-review process, not threaten to overturn it. The whole tone of all their emails is not of a group willing to discuss alternatives and have their data analyzed; the tone is that of a group that knows they are on shaky ground but will fight to defend it for as long as possible, at all costs. All the explanations I've seen so far fall way short of explaining not only the actual text of the emails, but more so the tone. We have peer-reviews at work; we don't threaten to kick out anyone who doesn't like the way we do it. Emails like those coming out of this would be grounds for firing.
I read the comment "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" as sarcastic, hence the exclamation point. At any rate we really would need to see the entire flow of the conversation to evaluate the tone. You know how electronic communications can sound out of context. My reaction is that I think the "tone" you are talking about is more in the blogs and forum posts I have read describing the emails than in the emails themselves. I had assumed people were uncovering some super-scandal and was frankly disappointed when I read the actual emails. Where do they "threaten to kick someone out"??
Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the comment "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" as sarcastic, hence the exclamation point. At any rate we really would need to see the entire flow of the conversation to evaluate the tone. You know how electronic communications can sound out of context. My reaction is that I think the "tone" you are talking about is more in the blogs and forum posts I have read describing the emails than in the emails themselves. I had assumed people were uncovering some super-scandal and was frankly disappointed when I read the actual emails. Where do they "threaten to kick someone out"??
It's all here, knock yourself out.http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/In addition, I see that Penn State is now investigating Michael Mann for deleting a series of e-mails exchanged between he and Phil Jones and others. The e-mails basically read "please delete these e-mails". And others basically say "I will contact xxx immediately". See the following link:http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-Coun...igation-of-MannKind of tough to take "please delete these e-mails" and "I will contact xxx immediately" out of context. But let's watch and see what the investigation turns up. Also note at the bottom of the link that East Anglia University has now decided to conduct their own investigation as well. Time for some academic face saving to start perhaps?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't commented on this thing yet, but I haven't seen anything in this so-called "Climate-Gate" thing that makes me think something fishy is going on. The one thing that people keep harping about involves a "trick" which is apparently used to accurately merge different datasets together. It involves combining tree ring and ice core data with modern temperature readings, or so I understand.I haven't wasted my time going through every last email, since I figure people will do summaries, will pull out the key points, and will argue them back and forth plenty. If I had infinite time, I'd go through 10 years of hacked emails to find some conspiracy, but I really, really don't. The recaps will have to suffice for me, and I haven't seen anything in the preliminary recaps that is damning.A "trick" is a word scientists use when they get a good idea.I think one of the major problems is that people simply don't understand how big science works, and how difficult it can be. I'm very sympathetic to these people who have to try to combine many, many different data sets, with varying degrees of accuracy, different types of information, different means of collecting data, different units, different bins, etc, and try to come up with a big picture conclusion.The "comments" part of the computer code is particularly indicative of this problem. I know that I have quite a few curses hidden within the comments of my code.The main problem is that the "experiment" in question has been going on for thousands and millions of years. At the LHC, for example, the experiment lasts maybe a decade. Even then, the format of the data isn't universal, and so you have to mix and match many different samples to try to find an answer. I can't imagine the headache it must be to combine temperature readings from different stations around the world (that probably don't communicate all that much, or do they have a universal standard), from tree ring data, from ice cores, from ocean sediment samples, atmospheric data, satellites, etc etc. What is the error in each one? Which do we trust the most, and does our trust of one change over time? Maybe don't trust temperature readings from 1900, and we prefer tree rings, but in 2000 we way trust temperatures more than tree rings, so the two have to be artificially balanced throughout the century. Again, I haven't gone through it, but this sounds like the sort of issues that people are dealing with, and that people are reading it with no context and no sense of how difficult this stuff is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VB, have you read the following? It seems like there's more to this than a few suspect emails.http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.phpSpecifically, it's apparent that CO2 emissions are partly responsible for warmer temps. What do you think about the theory that SO2 emissions cool temperatures, which seriously negate the 'effects' of AGW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Why? Which study that showed global warming do you now no longer believe as a result of these emails? Why was that particular study so important? 2. You exaggerate the global warming position to the point where it is a straw man.
There are people who would have us believe if we don't halt all carbon emissions from being produced immediately, that the world will be doomed beyond all repair. Certainly this kind of thing would suggest that there is a bit of artificial hype going on. And we do in fact have a bit of time to sit down and make an educated decision on it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
VB, have you read the following? It seems like there's more to this than a few suspect emails.http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php
This blog is a great example of what I am talking about. Reading through the emails quoted in there I see absolutely nothing wrong. Yet they stitch them together into some sinister story with some rather strange interpretations. Here is an example. Blog says: "Osborn's reply is hedged at best, and includes a rather insouciant admission that he is "amazed" that the journal Science agreed to publish his paper in the first place:"Actual email says: Mike,yes, you're right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It's attached.I wouldn't say we were immune to the issue -- results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies.Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we're just counting proxies -- I'm still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!:-)).But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just "likely" that modern is warmer than M[edieval] W[arm] P[eriod]. ...So, this Yamal thing doesn't damage Osborn & Briffa (2006), but important to note that O&B (2006) and others support the "likely" statement rather than being conclusive.CheersTimSo, he was making a joke about how uncomplicated their research was for being published in Science. And this is taken as an admission that they did something wrong? It's amazing really. These emails did not reveal the Briffa controversy, it was a public controversy that is being discussed rather forthrightly in these emails, and it seems to me that the scientists involved don't think that anything wrong was done. If anything, this email train is vindicating.
What do you think about the theory that SO2 emissions cool temperatures, which seriously negate the 'effects' of AGW.
I am not a climatologist and don't claim to understand any of the scientific content of these emails.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have an opinion on why they would want to be deleting emails?
Not sure. Maybe to avoid a bunch of laymen getting their hands on them and creating a false controversy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure. Maybe to avoid a bunch of laymen getting their hands on them and creating a false controversy.
that seems reasonable.... or maybe, just maybe, they don't want the 31,486 US Scientists who reject AGW to take alook at their work?
Link to post
Share on other sites
that seems reasonable.... or maybe, just maybe, they don't want the 31,486 US Scientists who reject AGW to take alook at their work?
Right. One or the other. But it's too late now, the cat is out of the bag, the emails have been found, and now everything is being scrutinized. Those 3.1486 * 10^4 scientists will now DEMAND access to the climate scientists data and methods. (I'm not sure what fraction of the 30 thousand or so scientists actually work in climate or a related field, but I'm sure there are at least some). Those scientists, armed with access to the data, knowledge of the analysis, and a desire to prove themselves correct and achieve vindication, will no doubt work hard, find mistakes, and publish some interesting papers showing the flaws with the current GW theories.I'm excited for 6 months to a year from now when all these papers come out, showing how wrong we all were. Should be interesting.Of course, should respectable papers not come out, even after all this attention and scrutiny, after all this (layman) anger and criticism, then that too would be interesting.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one of the major problems is that people simply don't understand how big science works, and how difficult it can be. I'm very sympathetic to these people who have to try to combine many, many different data sets, with varying degrees of accuracy, different types of information, different means of collecting data, different units, different bins, etc, and try to come up with a big picture conclusion.The main problem is that the "experiment" in question has been going on for thousands and millions of years. At the LHC, for example, the experiment lasts maybe a decade. Even then, the format of the data isn't universal, and so you have to mix and match many different samples to try to find an answer. I can't imagine the headache it must be to combine temperature readings from different stations around the world (that probably don't communicate all that much, or do they have a universal standard), from tree ring data, from ice cores, from ocean sediment samples, atmospheric data, satellites, etc etc. What is the error in each one? Which do we trust the most, and does our trust of one change over time? Maybe don't trust temperature readings from 1900, and we prefer tree rings, but in 2000 we way trust temperatures more than tree rings, so the two have to be artificially balanced throughout the century.
To me these are the most important points. You said it yourself it is hard and complicated and our study time is small and the experiment in question has been going on for millions of years...so why would we be so sure it is correct? why would move forward with a cap and trade system, why would we risk so much damage to the financial system in place if we aren't sure!!!!We are guessing folks....the most noted science guy on this site has all but said it...
Link to post
Share on other sites
To me these are the most important points. You said it yourself it is hard and complicated and our study time is small and the experiment in question has been going on for millions of years...so why would we be so sure it is correct? why would move forward with a cap and trade system, why would we risk so much damage to the financial system in place if we aren't sure!!!!We are guessing folks....the most noted science guy on this site has all but said it...
Um, that's really not what LLY said. This whole thing is interesting in that it really demonstrates some of the misunderstandings lay people have about science. Greater scientific scrutiny of these data is for sure going to be a good thing. Greater public scrutiny, however, is a dangerous thing, as these blogs have demonstrated. There is (almost) never complete certainty in science. That doesn't mean we are "guessing". Also, I'd say that risking damage to the financial system is not as dangerous as risking damage to the ecosystem. You can't have a financial system without a habitable planet. We're never going to have complete certainty about the climate situation; this does not mean we should never take any precautions. It's a complex risk/benefit analysis, but it doesn't require certainty.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, that's really not what LLY said. This whole thing is interesting in that it really demonstrates some of the misunderstandings lay people have about science. Greater scientific scrutiny of these data is for sure going to be a good thing. Greater public scrutiny, however, is a dangerous thing, as these blogs have demonstrated. There is (almost) never complete certainty in science. That doesn't mean we are "guessing". Also, I'd say that risking damage to the financial system is not as dangerous as risking damage to the ecosystem. You can't have a financial system without a habitable planet. We're never going to have complete certainty about the climate situation; this does not mean we should never take any precautions. It's a complex risk/benefit analysis, but it doesn't require certainty.
I said that...he laid out many of the issues and certainly showed reasonable doubt. That is why I used the term "he all but said it"...i actually agree it is a risk / benefit situation and after reading all the concerns Yorke has about the facts, the durations and how complex the situation is we should certainly not move forward with cap and trade....because we are guessing.The fact of the matter is the US (where most of us are based) has a shitload of polution controls. Are we perfect? No, of course not and we can do better. The free markets will find a way to make it cost effective and then the economy grows as polution improves it is a win win...cap and trade will just choke free enterprise. If on the other hand anyone could show clearly beyond doubt that we have a problem i would be more willing to discuss governmental control but we are a long long long way from that. One 10 year, 100 year or so cycle over the span of millions of years does not make this a problem. Plus I am not able to golf right now because the weather is so damn cold and windy!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
I said that...he laid out many of the issues and certainly showed reasonable doubt. That is why I used the term "he all but said it"...i actually agree it is a risk / benefit situation and after reading all the concerns Yorke has about the facts, the durations and how complex the situation is we should certainly not move forward with cap and trade....because we are guessing.
Maybe we just disagree about what guessing means. To me, guessing means you are making a choice based on little to no information. This is entirely different from having reasonable doubt, which we always have when making a scientific claim. There is a huge spectrum spanning from complete guess to total certainty, and we are somewhere in between.
The fact of the matter is the US (where most of us are based) has a shitload of polution controls. Are we perfect? No, of course not and we can do better. The free markets will find a way to make it cost effective and then the economy grows as polution improves it is a win win...cap and trade will just choke free enterprise. If on the other hand anyone could show clearly beyond doubt that we have a problem i would be more willing to discuss governmental control but we are a long long long way from that. One 10 year, 100 year or so cycle over the span of millions of years does not make this a problem. Plus I am not able to golf right now because the weather is so damn cold and windy!!!
I think that's an unreasonable standard given what is at stake.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, that's really not what LLY said. Greater public scrutiny, however, is a dangerous thing, as these blogs have demonstrated.
Transparency FTW?Didn't BHO run on that? Oh wait... not for this issue...
Link to post
Share on other sites
The one about throwing away data I can't find, the amount of info coming out grows by the day. If I see it again I will trot it out.The explanation above for the peer-review comment doesn't make any sense. If you think a paper is flawed, that's when you trust the peer-review process, not threaten to overturn it. The whole tone of all their emails is not of a group willing to discuss alternatives and have their data analyzed; the tone is that of a group that knows they are on shaky ground but will fight to defend it for as long as possible, at all costs. All the explanations I've seen so far fall way short of explaining not only the actual text of the emails, but more so the tone. We have peer-reviews at work; we don't threaten to kick out anyone who doesn't like the way we do it. Emails like those coming out of this would be grounds for firing.
In another email, Phil Jones appears to be instructing fellow scientists to delete incriminating emails subject to FOIA requests:

Mike,Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis.Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.John Overpeck, director of the Institute of the Environment at University of Arizona, in an email suggests that scientists are aware that their claim that 1998 was the warmest year on record is likely false:
I agree, that we don't want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was "likely" the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.

• In another incriminating email, Phil Jones discusses his evident reluctance to hand over information, and suggests sending the requested information just as raw data, which would "annoy" those behind the FOI request:

Options appear to be:Send them the dataSend them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.• In another email, Jones admits he will delete data rather than comply with FOI requests to disclose data which would show the basis for their dire warnings about global warming:
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!

• This email from Phil Jones shows that he was warned against deleted emails subject to FOI requests:

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

• Jones seems to fear the Freedom of Information Acts, telling his colleagues, “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”• Jones figured out how to circumvent those FOI requests:

Wei-Chyung and Tom,The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.CheersPhil

• And another from Jones, also regarding suppressing FOI requests:

Ben,When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on.

• Apparently the FOI doesn’t apply to climate change skeptics who want to see where these quacks are getting their whacko theories from. Another email from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones conspires to minimize data to exaggerate a warming trend:

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.Removing ENSO does not affect this.It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.Tom
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one of the major problems is that people simply don't understand how big science works, and how difficult it can be. I'm very sympathetic to these people who have to try to combine many, many different data sets, with varying degrees of accuracy, different types of information, different means of collecting data, different units, different bins, etc, and try to come up with a big picture conclusion.
I think their discussion of a "trick" is trivial and well-explained. But what stands out in all of it is the attitude that no, we won't release the data, that we have to make the results be close to what the IPCC wants, that we will stonewall investigation into our results by refusing to release data and deleting emails if necessary, even disobeying laws to do so. Also, the comments in one email about how to "hide" the evidence that contradicts their theory is pretty damning.I understand how complicated science is, and I can even understand how rivalries can develop. But none of that excuses the obfuscation and secrecy they've flagrantly engaged in. That combined with certain uses of phrases, such as explanations of how to hide negative results, makes this look like a very serious breach of scientific integrity. And considering that much of the basis of AGW is based on their original research ("Oops, the dog ate the data"), this story appears to be pretty big.In the end, though, regardless of the scandal, when you look at the fact that NO models accurately predicted the last 10 years of actual results, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the data and models are a demand that we need trillions of dollars of economic distortions to prevent some unknowable catastrophe 100 years from now.Now, when the models are correct for a couple of decades without any unexplained results, then we'll start to take it seriously. The other point that keeps getting lost -- and this scandal doesn't help that -- is that there are no current solutions that provide a net positive return on our spending, no matter how you count the cost of doing nothing. In all cases, it is cheaper to solve the problems that Global Warming... oops, Climate Change.... cause as they come up. Coastline flooding? Pay people to move inland. Heat wave? Move north or buy air conditioners. Every single problem can be analyzed this way, and in every case and in total, even in the worst case scenario, it is cheaper to just fix the problems later than try the uncertain and ridiculously expensive solutions proposed so far.
Link to post
Share on other sites

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down(AP) – 5 hours agoLONDON — Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada free press, apparently. I mean, I have no idea. I don't follow every worldwide news agency and what they report and how well they report it. Neither do you. I again don't understand why you're asking. If you're trying to imply that only fox news is covering it, I mean, there are links to like a half dozen articles in this thread, none of them fox news.
12 Days of ClimateGate and Network News Programs Are Still Ignoring the ScandalBy Julia A. Seymour | December 2, 2009 - 16:16It's been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people's faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university's Climate Research Unit.Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent - not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...