Has anybody spotted anything about the issue in the MSM yet?

What "issue"?

\doesn't read the National Enquirer Review

Mark Steyn? The guy who reported a story about a festival in Scotland as if it was in America? Who lied about the whole "Christmas" thing in the story?

Mark Steyn? The guy who just a couple of days ago reported a 3 year old debunked story as new and true?

Yeah, GREAT source.

You know, I don't think I got my copy of MSM this month. I must have let my subscription lapse.

Mordant: You know, I don't think I got my copy of MSM this month. I must have let my subscription lapse.

It was so cold all their locks froze, and they couldn't get an issue out this week. Sorry.

Anyone that thinks this issue is 1. Not being reported in the normal media outlets and 2. Is really a breakthrough expose of some vast conspiracy
is a sadly misinformed person. A 2 minute google will find hundreds of articles in all kinds of news outlets. It will also find a lot of real scientific explanations of what the emails said, not some bloggers uninformed, biased spin on them.

Dinki: Anyone that thinks this issue is 1. Not being reported in the normal media outlets and 2. Is really a breakthrough expose of some vast conspiracy
is a sadly misinformed person. A 2 minute google will find hundreds of articles in all kinds of news outlets. It will also find a lot of real scientific explanations of what the emails said, not some bloggers uninformed, biased spin on them.

it's a media relations nightmare for the global warming crowd.

Weaver95: t's a media relations nightmare for the global warming crowd.

True, but fortunately the people that really matter, at least on the scientific side of things, see it for what it is. The politicians will come down on whatever side they were on before it all started.

The only thing dumber than this low-rent amateur cover-up, are those holding it up as some kind of smoking gun against the entire scientific community.

Dinki: Weaver95: It's a media relations nightmare for the global warming crowd.

True, but fortunately the people that really matter, at least on the scientific side of things, see it for what it is.

You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial.... The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

mediablitz: Mark Steyn? The guy who reported a story about a festival in Scotland as if it was in America? Who lied about the whole "Christmas" thing in the story?

Mark Steyn? The guy who just a couple of days ago reported a 3 year old debunked story as new and true?

Yeah, GREAT source.

He would be more accurate but he's do busy being the only person in North America to stand up against Sharia law to fact-check. Or to geography check.

Weaver95:
it's a media relations nightmare for the global warming crowd.

It certainly could and probably should be bad PR for CRU. But the right-wing blogosphere has decided to insert itself into the story. Since they tend to do that with all the grace of an epileptic Labrador, the story is now going to be buried under blogger triumphalism about how they have disproven science and destroyed the LIebrul MSM drive-by secular media.

I wonder if CRU's giant paper shredder is more eco-friendly than Cheny's.
I hope they get investigated and get in trouble for violating FOIA. Sounds like scientists have been requesting their records for a long time and are told "oops, we made you a file but we deleated it"

MuadDib: You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

Thanks for illustrating my point. Monbiot rightly faults the scientists for their attitude and lack of openness and transparency. But nowhere does he fault their science. Which is what most Climate scientists are saying - not that the science is bad, but that they need to change the culture of secrecy and open the data up so everyone can see what is behind the papers they publish.

Bladel: The only thing dumber than this low-rent amateur cover-up, are those holding it up as some kind of smoking gun against the entire scientific community.

Nope just the idiots that pushed this into crisis mode instead of something that at worst is going to fix itself. We are already looking for new forms of energy that are more powerfuila and efficient. No ECOEMERGENCY needed.

Dinki: MuadDib: You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

Thanks for illustrating my point. Monbiot rightly faults the scientists for their attitude and lack of openness and transparency. But nowhere does he fault their science. Which is what most Climate scientists are saying - not that the science is bad, but that they need to change the culture of secrecy and open the data up so everyone can see what is behind the papers they publish.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in the unlikely event they ever do embrace the transparency and openness to challenges that are the hallmarks of real science.

The smart money says they'll hunker down and ramp up the volume on their ad hominems in the hopes this will just blow over.

/it won't

Manufactured story is manufactured.

Dinki: MuadDib: You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

Thanks for illustrating my point. Monbiot rightly faults the scientists for their attitude and lack of openness and transparency. But nowhere does he fault their science. Which is what most Climate scientists are saying - not that the science is bad, but that they need to change the culture of secrecy and open the data up so everyone can see what is behind the papers they publish.

actually, we're not entirely sure the science is sound. What's clear is that there was some effort expended to quiet dissenting scientists and corrupt the peer review process. Was that to cover up bad science or was it merely academic infighting writ large? nobody is really sure yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

One thing is very clear about all of this - a disturbing number of scientists stopped doing science and started becoming lobbyists.

Dinki: MuadDib: You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

Thanks for illustrating my point. Monbiot rightly faults the scientists for their attitude and lack of openness and transparency. But nowhere does he fault their science. Which is what most Climate scientists are saying - not that the science is bad, but that they need to change the culture of secrecy and open the data up so everyone can see what is behind the papers they publish.

But wasn't there explicit statements about "tricks" to made the data look right. Oh and there was the explicit lack of warming that was a travesty. Oh and what about spinning it to the media. Guy's you have been had. It may be happening but it sure ain't a "crisis".

I have never seen the term "MSM" seriously used by anyone of any political affiliation who was not a complete douchenozzle.

_/srsly

Weaver95: Dinki: MuadDib: You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

Thanks for illustrating my point. Monbiot rightly faults the scientists for their attitude and lack of openness and transparency. But nowhere does he fault their science. Which is what most Climate scientists are saying - not that the science is bad, but that they need to change the culture of secrecy and open the data up so everyone can see what is behind the papers they publish.

actually, we're not entirely sure the science is sound. What's clear is that there was some effort expended to quiet dissenting scientists and corrupt the peer review process. Was that to cover up bad science or was it merely academic infighting writ large? nobody is really sure yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

One thing is very clear about all of this - a disturbing number of scientists stopped doing science and started becoming lobbyists.

I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"

From one of the emails.

I haven't been able to swing a dead cat without hitting this story all week. Between the attention whores that snuck into the WH and Tiger's hot, hot wife going Happy Gilmore on his ass, black Friday has almost (but not nearly enough) been obscured by this bit of not news.

globalwarmingpraiser: From one of the emails.

Research why and you might learn something. But that would be work, something deniers are universally unwilling to actually do.

Weaver95: Dinki: MuadDib: You mean like George Monbiot? (^)

Thanks for illustrating my point. Monbiot rightly faults the scientists for their attitude and lack of openness and transparency. But nowhere does he fault their science. Which is what most Climate scientists are saying - not that the science is bad, but that they need to change the culture of secrecy and open the data up so everyone can see what is behind the papers they publish.

actually, we're not entirely sure the science is sound. What's clear is that there was some effort expended to quiet dissenting scientists and corrupt the peer review process. Was that to cover up bad science or was it merely academic infighting writ large? nobody is really sure yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

One thing is very clear about all of this - a disturbing number of scientists stopped doing science and started becoming lobbyists.

And then there's IPCC co-author Eduardo Zorita, (^ PDF) who wants top CRU suspects Mann, Jones, and Rahmstorf barred from further IPCC participation:

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files ...

I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere - and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now - editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'....

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.

That last bit's pretty telling. For years, people who didn't subscribe to AGW dogma have said that skeptics don't get funding or published. And now we have the proof. Yet the groupthink wants to wave the whole thing off as non-news. Very non-scientific.

MuadDib: That last bit's pretty telling. For years, people who didn't subscribe to AGW dogma have said that skeptics don't get funding or published. And now we have the proof. Yet the groupthink wants to wave the whole thing off as non-news. Very non-scientific.

it's been the most interesting aspect of this whole thing.

This is seriously going green?!?

CNN:
Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate (new window)

Reuters:
Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer (new window)

BBC:
Hacker leaks scientists' e-mails
(new window)

New York Times:
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research (new window)

Wall Street Journal:
Global Warming With the Lid Off (new window)

Washington Post:
Climate of denial (new window)

THIS IS A NON STORY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNGREEN THIS STUPID THREAD AND PUNISH SMITTY.

xiaodown: This is seriously going green?!?

CNN:
Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate (new window)

Reuters:
Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer (new window)

BBC:
Hacker leaks scientists' e-mails
(new window)

New York Times:
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research (new window)

Wall Street Journal:
Global Warming With the Lid Off (new window)

Washington Post:
Climate of denial (new window)

THIS IS A NON STORY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNGREEN THIS STUPID THREAD AND PUNISH SMITTY.

-------------

That can't be true, you moran! I listened to Glenn Beck, and he said:

If you rely on the lavishly remunerated "climate correspondents" of the big newspapers and networks, you'll know nothing about the Climate Research Unit scandals [...] If you follow online analysis from obscure websites on the fringes of the map, you'll know what's going on. If you go to the convenience store and buy today's newspaper, you won't. That's the problem.

WHY IS THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA COVERING UP CLIMATEGATE! AGENDA, THAT'S WHY!

/whargarbble

xiaodown:
THIS IS A NON STORY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNGREEN THIS STUPID THREAD AND PUNISH SMITTY.

It's a pretty safe bet that any time a bunch of blogs start on about how the MSM is covering something up, you'll find a link to a major media site underneath the messy remnants of a circle-jerk.

House of Tards: It certainly could and probably should be bad PR for CRU. But the right-wing blogosphere has decided to insert itself into the story. Since they tend to do that with all the grace of an epileptic Labrador, the story is now going to be buried under blogger triumphalism about how they have disproven science and destroyed the LIebrul MSM drive-by secular media.

I might have cared, but given the credibility of the folks involved now I am just not able to give a f*ck anymore. Yes, I know there's yet another wolf. Just like yesterday.

Abagadro: globalwarmingpraiser: From one of the emails.

Research why and you might learn something. But that would be work, something deniers are universally unwilling to actually do.

You mean like this? (new window)

xiaodown: This is seriously going green?!?

Page views.

I love the acronym "MSM". It tells me who not to take seriously.

globalwarmingpraiser: You mean like this? (new window)

Congratulations on finding ONE peer reviewed article supporting the Deniers claims. Sadly, it didn't hold up long...They removed the influence of volcanoes by simply removing data which they suspected coincided with the influence of volcanoes. They suppressed random noise by taking 12-month moving averages. And they eliminated man-made global warming by taking differences between values 12 months apart, which not only completely eliminates all influence of trends, it strongly suppresses all low-frequency variation. It's like estimating the influence of color on the sales of a new car, but first eliminating the influence of gas mileage, passenger comfort, reliability, and price! No wonder they're able to claim that SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA as represented by UAH TLT - they got rid of the other influences first. (new window)

Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error because
their analysis is based on inappropriate application of
filters to the data used. (new window)

Weaver95
actually, we're not entirely sure the science is sound. What's clear is that there was some effort expended to quiet dissenting scientists and corrupt the peer review process. Was that to cover up bad science or was it merely academic infighting writ large? nobody is really sure yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

Define "entirely sure". We don't know much of anything with 100% certitude about any topic. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists still believe that global warming is happening and that we're a significant cause of it. No amount of stupid politics is going to change that fact. It merely changes how many people believe the science, which is necessary to pass laws.

The right wingers crowing about this shiat are just as idiotic and anti-science as they were last month or last year. They don't want to believe in the science because it goes against their political views and in some cases even their religious views. Seriously. I've heard right wingers poo poo global warming science because they claim we little humans couldn't possibly have an impact on the entire planet's climate and God is controlling all of it anyway, so the science must be wrong.

This issue should be a left vs. right issue, but the business interests on the right sure as fark don't want to have to change anything. That costs money. It's cheaper to run propaganda to convince their sheep that global warming isn't real.

Yes, the e-mails are damaging. They are damaging because the anti-science crowd will use them in their bullshiat propaganda.

Dinki: globalwarmingpraiser: You mean like this? (new window)

Congratulations on finding ONE peer reviewed article supporting the Deniers claims. Sadly, it didn't hold up long...They removed the influence of volcanoes by simply removing data which they suspected coincided with the influence of volcanoes. They suppressed random noise by taking 12-month moving averages. And they eliminated man-made global warming by taking differences between values 12 months apart, which not only completely eliminates all influence of trends, it strongly suppresses all low-frequency variation. It's like estimating the influence of color on the sales of a new car, but first eliminating the influence of gas mileage, passenger comfort, reliability, and price! No wonder they're able to claim that SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA as represented by UAH TLT - they got rid of the other influences first. (new window)

Unfortunately, their conclusions are seriously in error because
their analysis is based on inappropriate application of
filters to the data used. (new window)

Oh and did you see the above quoted email on the efforts to keep anti APG studies out of peer reviewed articles. There has been an effort to shut down dissent. They have been using some cooked data. Would you like some aluminum tubes to go with that.

patrick767: Yes, the e-mails are damaging. They are damaging because the anti-science crowd will use them in their bullshiat propaganda.

No, the emails were damaging because they are evidence that a couple of influential scientists engaged in a pattern of unethical behavior.

globalwarmingpraiser: Dinki: globalwarmingpraiser:

Would you like some aluminum tubes to go with that.



Now you're getting nasty.

patrick767: Weaver95
actually, we're not entirely sure the science is sound. What's clear is that there was some effort expended to quiet dissenting scientists and corrupt the peer review process. Was that to cover up bad science or was it merely academic infighting writ large? nobody is really sure yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

Define "entirely sure". We don't know much of anything with 100% certitude about any topic. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists still believe that global warming is happening and that we're a significant cause of it. No amount of stupid politics is going to change that fact. It merely changes how many people believe the science, which is necessary to pass laws.

The right wingers crowing about this shiat are just as idiotic and anti-science as they were last month or last year. They don't want to believe in the science because it goes against their political views and in some cases even their religious views. Seriously. I've heard right wingers poo poo global warming science because they claim we little humans couldn't possibly have an impact on the entire planet's climate and God is controlling all of it anyway, so the science must be wrong.

This issue should be a left vs. right issue, but the business interests on the right sure as fark don't want to have to change anything. That costs money. It's cheaper to run propaganda to convince their sheep that global warming isn't real.

Yes, the e-mails are damaging. They are damaging because the anti-science crowd will use them in their bullshiat propaganda.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)


Seriously you think businesses are not already figuring out how to cash in on this long term. Gee these people make Billions of dollars by being stupid. DURR HURR HURR.

MuadDib: globalwarmingpraiser: Dinki: globalwarmingpraiser:

Would you like some aluminum tubes to go with that.



Now you're getting nasty.

Sometimes you gotta get dirty.

House of Tards: mediablitz: Mark Steyn? The guy who reported a story about a festival in Scotland as if it was in America? Who lied about the whole "Christmas" thing in the story?

Mark Steyn? The guy who just a couple of days ago reported a 3 year old debunked story as new and true?

Yeah, GREAT source.

He would be more accurate but he's do busy being the only person in North America to stand up against Sharia law to fact-check. Or to geography check.

Weaver95:
it's a media relations nightmare for the global warming crowd.

It certainly could and probably should be bad PR for CRU. But the right-wing blogosphere has decided to insert itself into the story. Since they tend to do that with all the grace of an epileptic Labrador, the story is now going to be buried under blogger triumphalism about how they have disproven science and destroyed the LIebrul MSM drive-by secular media.
Your user name fits you good, mr. warmer

Old & busted: The NRO.

Weaver95: No, the emails were damaging because they are evidence that a couple of influential scientists engaged in a pattern of unethical behavior.

So do we have enough evidence for the pope to convene an inquisition here? Can we actually put all scientists to the rack based on the actions of these few? Because that is what the foaming at the mouth lout in the street wants to know.

If not this is just more rabble rousing which would best be saved for the day we pull those elite bastards from their ivy covered halls and feast on the soft goo in their skulls.

..And the whole system is based on a kind of intellectual theft. Internet aggregators (who link to news they don't produce) and bloggers would have little to collect or comment upon without the costly enterprise of newsgathering and investigative reporting.

What's next, MSM? You're going to forbid people to discuss the news you "created"? Issue C&D orders or DMCA takedown notices because somebody was overheard in a bar discussing something they read in your crappy newspaper? Bullshiat. Get over it.

Link (earth changes)
Link (climate changes)
Ya' know, there's been many different lifeforms on this planet. What's to say we won't be the next ones to go.

That was poorly written trash. The author quite clearly has some major bias issues also.

TFA:Now it produces celebrity scientists living high off the hog of billions in grants.

What the hell kind of moron is this guy?

xiaodown: If you rely on the lavishly remunerated "climate correspondents" of the big newspapers and networks...

That's an extremely amusing assertion to make... "lavishly remunerated" LOL.

xiaodown: This is seriously going green?!?

CNN:
Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate (new window)

Reuters:
Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer (new window)

BBC:
Hacker leaks scientists' e-mails
(new window)

New York Times:
Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research (new window)

Wall Street Journal:
Global Warming With the Lid Off (new window)

Washington Post:
Climate of denial (new window)

THIS IS A NON STORY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD UNGREEN THIS STUPID THREAD AND PUNISH SMITTY.

We just had three days of coverage about somne people who crash a white house party. Are you seriously going to argue this story has been covered by national news? LOL warmer!

I for one use the MSM every day. They provide a wonderful resource. If they shutdown I don't know what my parrot will have to crap on.

An AGW link from NRO on the Main page? What, the checks from USA Today haven't cleared?

You know, if a stem cell researcher said in an email, "I have a new trick for extracting stem cells..." would there even be a story? If they said that they're glad that Jerry Falwell died, would it be news?

Why is it the case for global warming? People are reading things that aren't there. That climate scientists actually talk like regular people and are loose in their use of language in their personal correspondence? ZOMG COMPSRISY! This tells me more about the denialist crowd than the scientists.