Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, by all means, blame the whistle blowers and discoverers of the truth much in the same way as the ACORN fiasco. Villify the heros instead of the actual villians because they don't fit with your inconvenient truth.
Your heroes happen to be criminals who broke into someones computer and stole private property.
Other than that it turns out there was nothing in the data to prove their point.
We had a government under Bush/Cheney who attempted to confuse the public. They edited official government environmental reports on the topic. Its nothing new, its the same old, same old
...and onto the present day Bush was so successful in confusing people NPR seems to still be confused.
Quote:
Stolen E-Mails Raise Questions On Climate Research : NPR
A huge pile of e-mails were stolen from a British climate laboratory and posted on the Internet last week. The correspondence shows that some climate scientists are resorting to bare-knuckle tactics to defend the orthodoxy of global warming.
In particular, a group of scientists who support the consensus view of climate change have been working together to influence what gets published in science journals.
Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen e-mails show that a group of scientists has decided that's not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal.
Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious," Mann added.
The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked," there is "absolutely nothing in any of the emails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change."
This is a "smear campaign to distract the public," said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.
LOL Yeah, right. BUSTED! We always knew this was a hoax. Now there is proof in their own emails to one another.
There is no way they can hide from this. They have disallowed "peer review", and they have discussed "hiding" the real truth in those emails.
The cat is out of the bag, and they have been exposed as frauds.
Your heroes happen to be criminals who broke into someones computer and stole private property.
Other than that it turns out there was nothing in the data to prove their point.
And your "scientists" happen to be hacks who manipulated data and then lied about even having it in order to avoid complying with the freedom of information act becasue they knew their "data" was shiate and didn't want it subject to peer review, because they'd rather be in on a scam to fleace money from people by propagating their fake crisis. Who is the bigger criminal?
Like ACORN, this IS nothing more than propaganda to buttress their long standing attack on science.
So-called "hacked" emails are then pieced together to show.........well, who cares really.
We had a government under Bush/Cheney who attempted to confuse the public. They edited official government environmental reports on the topic. Its nothing new, its the same old, same old
...and onto the present day Bush was so successful in confusing people NPR seems to still be confused.
It's quite subjective an argument as to who, or whom, is being allegedly "excluded", and on what basis this exclusion rests.
Do they want nonsense published in a journal that is NOT peer reviewed? I'd make an assumption someone somewhere has made this accusation. Does it have merit? I dont know.
I do know that the overwhelming majority of actual scientists studying climate change have arrived at a near consensus for a reason, and that reason is based on science, not a silly conspiracy as some would believe.
Actually, many will believe just about anything. At least in this country, and especially on this forum
Quote:
Most of the papers Schmidt and his colleagues object to challenge the mainstream view of climate science. Schmidt says they may be wrong or even deceptive, but they are still picked up by politicians, pundits and businesses who are skeptical of climate change.
But Judy Curry, an earth and atmospheric sciences professor at Georgia Tech, says this huge defensive effort, by a select group of scientists, seems to be getting out of hand. Curry is worried that it's damaging the free flow of ideas in the scientific literature.
I wonder if Judy Curry is referring to rightwing propaganda, the chief intent of which is to confuse the public by raising these alleged doubts not shared by the majority of the scientific community?
If it is not peer reviewed, and some so called scientist funded by the Exxon research lab publishes some pseudo study, should it be included in a representative scientific journal if it does not represent the scientific community?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
