Home > News > International Reporting of Climategate has Been Terrific, Not Ours

International Reporting of Climategate has Been Terrific, Not Ours

November 28, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

More proof that the MSM is the propaganda arm of the Obama administration and the liberal fringe.

Americans do many things incredibly well. We are on top of the world in many ways. Our lack of real reporting is astounding. Our media is in cahoots with our government in a much greater way than any other advanced country. It as if we were living in china the way misinformation gets onto the airways. Some of it is just a plain bias, but I feel most of it actually stems from the lack of real reporting… and perhaps the very real presence of lobbying.

Climategate has rocked international news outlets like it was Watergate. If you were watching news in America you would probably just see “Scientist’s emails were hacked and spread to ruin Obama’s trip to Copenhagen!” I hate to tell the mainstream media outlets this but it is so true… Nobody is watching you.

International Reporting of Climategate has Been Terrific, Not Ours | Politicallore.com/blog

Advertisements
  1. December 12, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  2. ayfs
    December 12, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Outstanding comment, hkyson.

    I would like to add that two of the basic tenets of science is repeatability and peer review. Any experiment must be repeatable using the same data and that your peers must be able to view the results, methods, and data that you used.

    This has not taken place. The global warming groups, refuse to have that data examined. NASA is now being sued after refusing to obey a Freedom of Information order to release it. Recently, scientists took the computer “climate models” and ran them backwards to see if it would match up with the past. They weren’t accurate 5 years back, so how could they be accurate 20 years in the future. Much of the information that the UN bases their cries of Global Warming on came from the ClimateGate group. Now the original data is “accidentally destroyed”.

    The number of scientists who disagree with global warming is far from a tiny minority. Many prominent scientists have come forward to disagree.

    Nor is this “ClimateGate” the only time this has happened. Even more recently, the New Zealand’s NIWA was discovered to have been pushing global warming with faked information.

    This is not “science”, it is fraud. Taking drastic actions without having the science proven according to accepted scientific methods is ignorant. Yet, these same “scientists” who scream abut global warming, refuse to have any of their work examined by others. Global warming is pushed by people like Al Gore who refuses to debate it, discuss it, but make their fortunes from it.

    If any of you are old enough, you will remember the same stupidity as now, but the calls were “stop global cooling”. We need to have open, transparent science, not this crap.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: