Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   NYT, last year: "Check out these e-mails hacked from a Palin campaign staffer." Last week: "ClimateGate? Sorry; we will not publish illegally obtained e-mails." Bonus: BBC also tried to squash the story for two weeks   (media.nationalreview.com) divider line 916
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

15676 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Nov 2009 at 6:23 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



916 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-24 12:39:27 PM  
Because climate change is actually happening... just maybe not the way they thought.

... and that would confuse people that it actually wasn't happening.

/Most people are dumb.
 
2009-11-24 12:41:42 PM  
We did something in the past that got us in trouble, we won't do that again.
 
2009-11-24 12:47:44 PM  
It is good to know we can count on fine, upstanding and completely unbiased journalists like those at NRO to lead us to the light.
 
2009-11-24 12:54:01 PM  
for the love of pete, stop with the "-gate" crap. Everything that goes wrong for one side or the other, or is percieved to go wrong becomes a f*$%#@g GATE!! stop it. just. stop it.
 
2009-11-24 12:55:01 PM  
oldebayer: It is good to know we can count on fine, upstanding and completely unbiased journalists like those at NRO to lead us to the light.

Not attacking you directly, but are "you" saying that these emails are a fabrication by another group for nefarious purposes or are you merely shooting the messenger?
 
2009-11-24 12:55:03 PM  
OlafTheBent: Because climate change is actually happening... just maybe not the way they thought.

... and that would confuse people that it actually wasn't happening.


Have you actually read any of the pirated e-mails? There's rather a lot more to it than "How can we release this info without confusing the public?" It's more a matter of "The data refuses to conform to our agenda. How do we cover this up?"
 
2009-11-24 12:56:16 PM  
Chindit: for the love of pete, stop with the "-gate" crap. Everything that goes wrong for one side or the other, or is percieved to go wrong becomes a f*$%#@g GATE!! stop it. just. stop it.

ClimateScam? ClimateBullShiat?
 
2009-11-24 12:59:11 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Chindit: for the love of pete, stop with the "-gate" crap. Everything that goes wrong for one side or the other, or is percieved to go wrong becomes a f*$%#@g GATE!! stop it. just. stop it.

ClimateScam? ClimateBullShiat?


Hamburger time.
 
2009-11-24 01:02:44 PM  
Chindit: for the love of pete, stop with the "-gate" crap. Everything that goes wrong for one side or the other, or is percieved to go wrong becomes a f*$%#@g GATE!! stop it. just. stop it.

Looks like the beginning of ragegate right here.
 
2009-11-24 01:03:08 PM  
Lets run that up the flag pole and see who salutes, shall we?

Jobscreationscam.
saveGMscam
capandtradescam

I like it! Thank you sir (or madam). Carry on.
 
2009-11-24 01:10:55 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Have you actually read any of the pirated e-mails? There's rather a lot more to it than "How can we release this info without confusing the public?" It's more a matter of "The data refuses to conform to our agenda. How do we cover this up?"

So the climate hasn't changed at all due to Human interference/activity?

Really?... not one bit.

You're 100% positive?... then you're the only one on the planet.

... or is it just manifesting itself differently than these people thought.

To what end?... what do they hope to accomplish by lying?... more environmentalist jobs?... a plethora of veggie burgers?... what?
 
2009-11-24 01:10:58 PM  
Has any group in the history of mankind ever been as persecuted as modern conservatives ?
 
2009-11-24 01:11:01 PM  
Because climate change is actually happening

it has been changing daily since the beginning of time



its a fkn hoax to take you money
 
2009-11-24 01:14:23 PM  
Here's a handful of examples from the stolen e-mails:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"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."

"Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back-I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back."

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"
 
2009-11-24 01:14:47 PM  
To what end?... what do they hope to accomplish by lying?... more environmentalist jobs?... a plethora of veggie burgers?... what?


money you moran, they are in it for the money



they manipulated data to meet their needs.
 
2009-11-24 01:21:09 PM  
OlafTheBent: So the climate hasn't changed at all due to Human interference/activity?

Really?... not one bit.

You're 100% positive?... then you're the only one on the planet.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is why these scientists have been -- not allegedly; the exposed e-mails prove it -- why they have been:

1. Deliberately falsifying published data to hide inconvenient trends.
2. Deliberately manipulating the peer review process to exclude anyone who disagreed with them.
3. Deliberately hiding the fact that they don't know how to account for anomalies such as the MWP or the recent cooling trend.
4. Periodically asking internal colleagues to delete e-mails that could prove damning if exposed.
5. Misusing the peer review process to discredit opposing theorists.

This is the kind of conspiratorial goldmine the media lacked when it tackled scandals like the Madoff scams, Enron, Bush/Iraq/Nigeria/yellowcake etc., Bush's army records, Watergate, Iran/Contra or name any other. Yet in all those cases they still had plenty of evidence to move forward.

This evidence is exponentially better. This isn't a smoking gun; this is a gun with the shooter's finger still on the trigger!

Most media outlets would cream their jeans if they got ahold of evidence like this. So why did the BBC try to squash it for two weeks? Why are most of the media outlets ignoring it?
 
2009-11-24 01:22:58 PM  
I guess it pays to diversify your portfolio, libs can make a fortune from ACORN and from screwing over hard working conservatives with Global Warming.
 
2009-11-24 01:23:13 PM  
Mordant: Has any group in the history of mankind ever been as persecuted as modern conservatives ?

Yeah, let's shoot the messenger. Poking fun at Inhofe et. al will make all this just go away.

Sorry, but these guys weren't just caught red-handed. They were caught live on camera before a world-wide audience with their pants down and their junk rammed all the way up a goat's backside.
 
2009-11-24 01:23:49 PM  
Ima10urin8: money you moran, they are in it for the money

He gets that, dumbass. He's wanting to know what step two is supposed to be:

1. Falsify climate change data.
2. ??????
3. Profit!

Do you really think there was more money to be had in the last eight years from making stuff up about climate change than there would have been in going along with the Bush administration's line?
 
2009-11-24 01:24:11 PM  
Sensei Can You See: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

I love how you deniers like using that one, especially since 'decline' as used in CONTEXT is the decline of uncertainty from old data.
 
2009-11-24 01:25:04 PM  
dancininanson.net


Questioning the Faith doesn't come easy.
 
2009-11-24 01:28:14 PM  
Sensei Can You See: OlafTheBent: So the climate hasn't changed at all due to Human interference/activity?

Really?... not one bit.

You're 100% positive?... then you're the only one on the planet.

You're asking the wrong question. The question is why these scientists have been -- not allegedly; the exposed e-mails prove it -- why they have been:

1. Deliberately falsifying published data to hide inconvenient trends.
2. Deliberately manipulating the peer review process to exclude anyone who disagreed with them.
3. Deliberately hiding the fact that they don't know how to account for anomalies such as the MWP or the recent cooling trend.
4. Periodically asking internal colleagues to delete e-mails that could prove damning if exposed.
5. Misusing the peer review process to discredit opposing theorists.

This is the kind of conspiratorial goldmine the media lacked when it tackled scandals like the Madoff scams, Enron, Bush/Iraq/Nigeria/yellowcake etc., Bush's army records, Watergate, Iran/Contra or name any other. Yet in all those cases they still had plenty of evidence to move forward.

This evidence is exponentially better. This isn't a smoking gun; this is a gun with the shooter's finger still on the trigger!

Most media outlets would cream their jeans if they got ahold of evidence like this. So why did the BBC try to squash it for two weeks? Why are most of the media outlets ignoring it?


home.comcast.net
 
2009-11-24 01:28:40 PM  
GAT_00: I love how you deniers like using that one, especially since 'decline' as used in CONTEXT is the decline of uncertainty from old data.

Right. Because "trick," "uncertainty," and "hide" are all words used to describe something that's totally above board and beyond reasonable doubt.
 
2009-11-24 01:29:05 PM  
Barbigazi: We did something in the past that got us in trouble against conservatives, but we won't do that again against liberals.

FTFY
 
2009-11-24 01:29:34 PM  
crimsin23: Barbigazi: We did something in the past that got us in trouble against conservatives, but we won't do that again against liberals.

FTFY


THIS!
 
2009-11-24 01:29:48 PM  
Do you really think there was more money to be had in the last eight years from making stuff up about climate change than there would have been in going along with the Bush administration's line?

yes, its called the set up

1. Falsify climate change data.
2. carbon tax, cap and trade installed
3. Profit!
 
2009-11-24 01:30:38 PM  
No YOU'RE a Towel: WOLF!

How's that ad hominem working out for ya? Maybe if you yell a little louder all these e-mails will vanish into thin air.
 
2009-11-24 01:31:23 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Most media outlets would cream their jeans if they got ahold of evidence like this. So why did the BBC try to squash it for two weeks? Why are most of the media outlets ignoring it?

... it's quite simple. Climate change is real and the cost of misleading the public into doing nothing would be too great.

Broad reporting of this would give the naysayers plenty of ammo to discount the entire thing.

Just because these bozos can't figure it out doesn't mean the whole idea should be discounted.

Earth's history more than one episode where severe climate change wiped out the majority of all life on the planet. I can afford to be wrong... you can't.
 
2009-11-24 01:32:06 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Right. Because "trick," "uncertainty," and "hide" are all words used to describe something that's totally above board and beyond reasonable doubt.

So one line in an e-mail proves the whole thing is fake due to a couple of words that you seem to love taking out of context? That's some amazingly selective proof there.
 
2009-11-24 01:33:23 PM  
OlafTheBent: I can afford to be wrong

Hell, even if things aren't changing, how is improving the world a bad thing? The deniers are kinda like the people who opposed civil rights because "that's the way it always was."
 
2009-11-24 01:33:43 PM  
yes, its called the set up

1. Falsify climate change data.
2. carbon tax, cap and trade installed
3. Profit!


If only there were some way to get in on the profits when you can see the scam so clearly.

Oh well, they'd probably just pass laws banning conservatives from making money on it.
 
2009-11-24 01:35:00 PM  
crimsin23: Barbigazi: We did something in the past that got us in trouble against conservatives, but we won't do that again against liberals.

FTFY


When they did it with SP's emails it was the height of corruption and the NRO and the right wing howled to the wind about the injustice of theft and privacy.

Now, where is your moral compass?
 
2009-11-24 01:35:34 PM  
weezbo: Do you really think there was more money to be had in the last eight years from making stuff up about climate change than there would have been in going along with the Bush administration's line?

Not sure. I'm also not sure money is involved. What I see here is a bunch of folks who have committed their reputations and careers to a proposition that the data keeps stubbornly refusing to support. They get desperate; they convince themselves that the money will come in if they can kite the checks just a little longer.

The real tragedy is that this incident will make it even harder to gather reliable data about what's really going on. First the climate-change apologists engage in a bunch of scare tactics to try to ram through unexamined legislation. Then they spend a few years belittling, shouting down or discrediting anyone who disagrees with them. Now it's proven that they're manipulating the data on top of all that.

This will descend into political finger-pointing; hell, it already has. The true believers won't listen to the evidence that their prophets were lying; the deniers will get smug; and the honest inquirers in the middle with no agenda will have no way to sort out the truth.,
 
2009-11-24 01:36:12 PM  
GAT_00: Hell, even if things aren't changing, how is improving the world a bad thing?

OK now you're getting desperate. I'd just ignore this and pick another battle if I were you.
 
2009-11-24 01:39:17 PM  
ne2d: OK now you're getting desperate. I'd just ignore this and pick another battle if I were you.

Uh, I've always held that position, so I don't know what you mean by that. And I know I'm right, so there's that too.

Sensei Can You See: What I see here

What you see here is what you've convinced yourself you're seeing, nothing else.
 
2009-11-24 01:41:12 PM  
Ima10urin8: yes, its called the set up

1. Falsify climate change data.
2. carbon tax, cap and trade installed
3. Profit!


So, as part of step 2, these climateologists... what? Take bribes from corrupt politicians? Buy stock in companies they know will fail because the real data says so? Take office and then embezzle funds?

You're clearly certain of a profit motive but I'm looking for specific examples of how the people you say are falsifying data will share in those profits. I suppose they were actually using their supercomputers to predict the next election cycle so they'd know they'd get a sympathetic administration that would roll grant money over to them? Is that it?

I'm not even saying you're wrong. It's just that you're so certain that you're right and I'm trying to get a clearer picture of what's going on as you see it.
 
2009-11-24 01:43:53 PM  
GAT_00: The deniers are kinda like the people who opposed civil rights because "that's the way it always was."

Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition?

About 10 years ago I had to replace my furnace. I spent a little extra to get the most energy-efficient one I could afford. Same thing five years ago when the water heater died; same thing three years ago when I upgraded our dishwasher.

Two years ago I had to replace my siding and windows. I spent extra to get Low-E glass, extra Tyvek insulation and a new layer of reflective insulation in the attic.

This year we've been replacing light bulbs as they burn out with fluorescents.

I did these things for three reasons:

1. Because even though I'm a Neanderthal conservative, I do care about the environment.
2. To save money on my energy bill, and
3. The government and local utilities are kind enough to make such improvements attractive with tax breaks and other incentives.

Now let's pretend that instead, Uncle Sam decrees that I can't buy a house in the first place unless I pony up the $40,000 or so that all these improvements have cost me -- up front.

Which kind of improvement do you think is more likely to happen? Draconian measure like cap & trade or Kyoto will just make it harder for nations to get green while they improve their infrastructure. And chicanery like these e-mails and Al Gore's carbon-offset get-rich scams just increase the cynicism.
 
2009-11-24 01:47:55 PM  
GAT_00: Sensei Can You See: What I see here

What you see here is what you've convinced yourself you're seeing, nothing else.


Eh? Evidence gets exposed; we all look at it (or avoid looking at it, as the case may be), then respond with what we think the evidence means. Why exactly do you define this as willfull self-blindness?

Instead of sneering at your opponents' politics or challenging them to create a cash-based motive, how about you come up with alternate explanations for what these e-mails mean?

And get ready to keep doing it, by the way -- I hear tell there's nearly a gigabyte of compressed e-mails altogether, so I'm sure a lot of other really embarrassing revelations are on the way.
 
2009-11-24 01:49:44 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Now it's proven that they're manipulating the data on top of all that.

At best, from the out of context postings you give, they are manipulating the spin on the real data. I'm not familiar enough with the cited climateologists either to even verify how that affects the "big picture". If they're saying they need to exclude outliers because things in some areas aren't as bad as things in population centers, then it doesn't matter one whit what those emails say. You want to talk about being moderate and taking a "let's find the truth" view, but your instant reaction to excerpted email is to fling babies and bathwater with wild abandon.


I suppose the real question is: Assuming the worst case scenario and funding research into alternative fuels using faulty carbon data to tax companies that pollute in far more ways than carbon dioxide emissions, do we actually wind up worse off in the long run?
 
2009-11-24 01:51:18 PM  
Barbigazi: When they did it with SP's emails it was the height of corruption and the NRO and the right wing howled to the wind about the injustice of theft and privacy.

Not this conservative. Oh, I though it was childish to dish out campaign stuff that, rather than exposing illegal activity, was meant simply to embarrass Palin. But then again, everything about campaigning and the media is childish.

OTOH, her staffers should have known better than to allow anything potentially embarrassing to be handled in such an insecure environment.

As far as ClimateGate goes, these fellers have a LOT of fast talking to do. I suspect some funding and grants and so on are about to start vanishing.
 
2009-11-24 01:51:40 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition?

Which of the various proposals to reduce carbon emissions over the course of more than a decade do you consider "all-or-nothing"?
 
2009-11-24 01:51:52 PM  
I thought Europeans didn't matter. I'm so confused.
 
2009-11-24 01:51:56 PM  
weezbo: I suppose they were actually using their supercomputers to predict the next election cycle so they'd know they'd get a sympathetic administration that would roll grant money over to them? Is that it?

Trouble is, the stupid eggheads are just rolling their grant money into more computers and slide rules and other scientifical mumbo jumbo. This is why liberalism is bound to fail, even when they get a good scam going they can't take advantage of it the way a normal person would.

If I had all that grant money I'd get a lift kit and some of them there nekkid lady mudflaps for my truck.
 
2009-11-24 01:52:33 PM  
Sensei Can You See: Not this conservative.

Of course not, now that the benefit is on the other foot, it's all fair play.
 
2009-11-24 01:52:57 PM  
weezbo: At best, from the out of context postings you give, they are manipulating the spin on the real data.

Right. By defining dissenters as "not peer reviewed" and by deleting potentially embarrassing e-mails.

Sorry, but like I said, these guy were caught on camera with their pants down, their junk balls-deep in a goat and wearing their best O-face.
 
2009-11-24 01:55:39 PM  
weezbo: Sensei Can You See: Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing proposition?

Which of the various proposals to reduce carbon emissions over the course of more than a decade do you consider "all-or-nothing"?


I mentioned three really stupid ones in the post you're quoting:

1. Cap-and-trade, which just moves money around and changes nothing.
2. Carbon offsets -- same problem.
3. Kyoto, which at best would keep third-world nations from ever being able to improve and at worst would wreck the West's economy.

I have to go to a meeting. This is y'alls cue to triumphantly announce your superior logic skillzorz made me run away. TTFN!
 
2009-11-24 01:55:59 PM  
Fizpez: oldebayer: It is good to know we can count on fine, upstanding and completely unbiased journalists like those at NRO to lead us to the light.

Not attacking you directly, but are "you" saying that these emails are a fabrication by another group for nefarious purposes or are you merely shooting the messenger?


It is a sad world we live in when people have become so cynical and agenda-driven that they cannot read a simple, true statement without reading into it a nefarious purpose.
 
2009-11-24 01:57:35 PM  
weezbo: I suppose the real question is: Assuming the worst case scenario and funding research into alternative fuels using faulty carbon data to tax companies that pollute in far more ways than carbon dioxide emissions, do we actually wind up worse off in the long run?

Whoops -- almost forgot I wanted to respond to this:

If the data is good and there are benefits to be had, why lie?

On the other hand, if you're caught trying to manipulate others with false data, why make yourself look worse by insisting that acting on the false data will still help?
 
2009-11-24 02:04:30 PM  
Sensei Can You See: No YOU'RE a Towel: WOLF!

How's that ad hominem working out for ya? Maybe if you yell a little louder all these e-mails will vanish into thin air.


I answered your question. Why is the media ignoring it? Because you people have tried to pull this before. Maybe these are legit, maybe you are right. But I doubt it, and chances are so does everyone else.
 
2009-11-24 02:04:46 PM  
Sensei Can You See:
As far as ClimateGate goes, these fellers have a LOT of fast talking to do. I suspect some funding and grants and so on are about to start vanishing.


I don't understand. Because two guys tried to manipulate their data, all climate scientists have been lying and global warming is a hoax? A small number of researchers in every field have been dissatisfied with their data and tried to fake it to draw conclusions that are more likely to be published.
 
Displayed 50 of 916 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report