% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.


you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • elk_1l elk_1l Nov 25, 2012 6:25 PM Flag

    GOP CONS on here still didn't get the message sent by WE THE PEOPLE.

    Re: "C;mon elk, you again forgot to mention the British scientists who were caught fudging the the global warming facts to suit their agenda. Global warming per se has been debunked and your figure of 99 to 1 percent is indeed a stretch to sat the least. (Late bulletin for you: The planet is getting colder.)"

    More nonsense, dickw, generated within the Rightwingnut bubble. Do you avoid looking at the dramatic changes in our weather and rising ocean levels? It remains that 99% of the climate scientists find evidence of global warming caused, at least in part, by human activities in the past century and the other 1% are on the pay rolls of Exxon-Mobil, Koch Insdustries (and organizations they fund like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation), BP, Amoco, and others. Check it out, dickw.


    British inquiry vindicates scientists in scandal over climate data

    Raphael G. Satter, AP / March 31, 2010

    LONDON — The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world’s leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

    The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee said yesterday that it had seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

    In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,’’ adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.’’

    The 14-member committee’s investigation is one of three launched after the dissemination, in November, of e-mails and data stolen from the research unit. The e-mails appeared to show scientists berating skeptics in sometimes intensely personal attacks, discussing ways to shield their data from public records laws, and discussing ways to keep skeptics’ research out of peer-reviewed journals. One that attracted particular media attention was Jones’s reference to a “trick’’ that could be used to “hide the decline’’ of temperatures.

    The e-mails’ publication ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit sparked an online furor, with skeptics of man-made climate change calling the e-mails’ publication “Climategate’’ and claiming them as proof that the science behind global warming had been exaggerated — or even made up altogether.

    The lawmakers said they decided to investigate due to “the serious implications for UK science.’’

    Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, said of the e-mails that “there’s no denying that some of them were pretty appalling.’’

    But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond “a blunt refusal to share data,’’ adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.


    “The winner in the end will be climate science itself,’’ he said.

    The winner today was Jones, who stepped down temporarily as chief of the climate research unit about week after the e-mail scandal broke.

    The committee expressed sympathy with Jones, whom Willis said had been made a scapegoat for larger problems within the climate science community.

    “The focus on Professor Jones and the CRU has been largely misplaced,’’ the report said.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Elk, it looks like yahoo didn't like my reply so I'll try again. Your article looked to me like a coverup and an attempt at damage control. I know you guys are dedicated to that nobel laureate Al Gore but for a change google - global warming debunked and read - New Study Thoroughly Debunks Global Warming. Also click on Wikipedia for the list of prominent scientists who disagree with you. I would make it easier for you but yahoo won't allow it. As for your 99 percent of scientists, I believe many are not legitimate scientists. By the way, word is Al Gore has made millions of his global warming.

      Sentiment: Hold

      • 1 Reply to dickw3939
      • Re: "Elk, it looks like yahoo didn't like my reply so I'll try again. Your article looked to me like a coverup and an attempt at damage control. I know you guys are dedicated to that nobel laureate Al Gore but for a change google - global warming debunked and read - New Study Thoroughly Debunks Global Warming. ...."

        OMG, dickw, now you are touting Noel Sheppard, a card-carrying member and leader of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy crew and self styled "Newsbuster" as well as a major maintainer of the Rightwingnut Bubble, as a scientist.

        Hey Newsbusters, show us your science

        Kevin Grandia

        In very predictable form, Noel Sheppard at the oil-industry-friendly Newsbuster's, takes to task NASA scientist Jim Hansen's rebuttal to the misinformation and media hype around the minor adjustments to NASA's US temperature records.

        Sheppard writes: "So, folks like McIntyre, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Benny Peiser, Robert Carter, Anthony Watts, and all those around the world including myself who are exposing the flaws in the anthropogenic global warming myth are jesters deceiving the public."

        Well, yes, in fact that would be true if you consider that within the context of science, there are those who are actually doing research and publishing their findings in the peer-reviewed literature. Then there are those, like Ball, Peiser and Carter who instead of proving their hypotheses that climate change is either not happening or is just natural fluctuation through original research, choose to air their opinions in the pages of newspapers and on television.

        Unfortunately, for Ball et al., opinion is not science and Sheppard's contention that he and his gang are somehow "exposing the flaws" holds no water if the only place you read about these flaws is on his blog and/or the few newspapers who still get science and opinion mixed up.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy