Skip to comments.Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done
Posted on 06/26/2010 9:28:17 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
...not only did British investigators clear the East Anglia scientist at the center of it all, Phil Jones, of scientific impropriety and dishonesty in April, an investigation at Penn State cleared PSU climatologist Michael Mann of falsifying or suppressing data, intending to delete or conceal e-mails and information, and misusing privileged or confidential information in February.
In perhaps the biggest backpedaling, The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claimnamely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was unsubstantiated. The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Newsweek has to be excerpted.
Ed’s idiot wife wrote this?
And it lies on purpose.
And it lies all the time.
The usual Newsweek Cover-up.
I thought they were closing this unpopular propaganda rag down?
This story turns out to be false.
We have to admit that if the evidence shows it is false.
However...it seems to me that "Climategate" is aptly-named. As with Watergate, the initial crime is only the beginning of the real story. What Climategate did was open up the debate and let more people chime in with more data showing this stuff is bull.
The genie is out of the bottle, for which we should be grateful. But if we're to have anymore integrity than those we bash, we have to admit to the truth, and in this case, we can't just say "Oh, they're lying!" when we believed these sources when their stories seemed to support our side.
Do it Al, do it!!!
Do it Al, do it!!!
The doors to Newsweek are not shut yet? =.=
Hmm..that seems impossible as any mathematical equation requires some modicum of source accuracy even for projections, the books were cooked as the emails showed, and yet there is newsweak claiming that the “Emperor Does Have Clothes”?
I’m calling Bravo Sierra.
That’s great and you rock!
I also notice newsweak does not actually quote the investigation’s findings, who the investigators were, and the scope they claim to have remained substantiated.
Sorry Newsweak, try again.
We’ve concluded our investigation on our complicity in this debacle and we find that the evidence fails to support our intentional effort to subvert the truth of the matter; which is that truth is a slippery element of conjecture that can only be pinned down if the sun, moon, and stars are perfectly aligned on every bowling Thursday at Ray’s Hyper-Bowl in Topeka, Kansas...in odd years.
These marxist morons have every intention of trying to rehabilitate their bogus horsesh*t any way they can.
Even the hockey stick?
i’m with you on this one. i’m having a hard time understanding where the vindication is in all these reports. perhaps i’m just wore out from work tonight, but i also after reading them came away with the feeling that they sent in their own guys who came back and basically said “ no, really...they weren’t fudging with the data and i can prove it because they told me so, and they wouldn’t lie.” to which the investigators reply, “great! thats all we wanted to know. thanks so much for clarifying!” case closed. maybe i just need a nap, but i’m not seeing anyone pointing to any evidence that would prove their theory. someone please set me straight, i like to base my opinions on facts.
That site will get no hits from me.
Anyway, That fraud at Penn State, Michael Mann, was "cleared" by - - Penn State! IIRC, Mann still faces futher investigations. Sharon Begley wrote this silly piece, which naturally was enthusiastically published by a Democrat party organ, like a child who was just offered proof that there is no Santa Claus. She may as well scrunch her eyes shut, clamp her hands over her ears, and chant "lalalalalalalalala...."
That even the Liberals don’t believe global warming is shown in how fast they switched their mantra to “climate change” from “global warming”.
Climate change covers about any and everything, and nothing.
Total bogus cause.
Hot in summer and cold in winter = “climate change”
We must raise taxes and energy bills of everyone to make an end to hot summers and cold winters.
It is an inconvenient truth for the Gaia worshipers that the original Climategate emails are still available on the Internet to anyone interested in the truth.
Global Warming Hoax Deniers at it again.
Sorry but the Fortran “correction” isn’t accounted for.
Maybe you should read more in depth this puff piece and its references? This cobbled together article is simply s construed attempt to again legitimize the exposed illegitimate junk 'science' involved... For instance, PSU & UEA are STILL investigating the matter -far from a done deal that the retractions and this puff piece citing the retractions purports.
As well, the investigation perspective PSU took on matters determined thus far was whether or not there was INTENT to deceive on the part of Mann and did not directly address the issue of junk scientific method or results thus far -they seem to look at proving or disproving intent or motive and ignore even looking into the data?
Additionally, I have seen nothing that addresses the suppression and or commission of studies or data. Neither investigative effort has mentioned even pursuing this avenue or even interviewing said supposed 'censored' scientists...
So far, it sire looks like a whitewash job to me...
Maybe you should ask before you assume. I've been reading the European versions of this story for a couple of days.
You can just deny anything that doesn't appeal to your worldview. I prefer truth, even if it's "inconvenient" because I know in the end the Global Warming stuff is a farce--using lies to disprove it helps the kooks.
Maybe you should read my post TOO and refute what I specifically went to the effort to kindly point out for YOU?
Who asked you to? I couldn't care less what you think.
You can lead a horse to water ...
Your definitive opinion is somewhat LESS substantial to me now -definitely questionable...
You are under this bizarre idea that I care at all what you think, whoever you are.
Your snotty attitude doesn't impress. I'll await your next foolish waste of cyberspace.
Newsweak? I’ll read this issue in my doctor’s office next year.
Maybe next time you will think twice when you speak for we.
Some of the we people actually may mot be lazy and in fact disagree with YOU...
Global climate change will occur with or without human influence, and no one, not even Al Gore, is willing to sacrifice his life style if that is what is required to stop ‘climate change’. Therefore, what is the point to all of this?
That you're so ignorant of a simple rhetorical device, and you insist on being a petulant little child, and you still seem to think I give a damn what you think--or IF you can think.
Some of the we people actually may mot be lazy and in fact disagree with YOU...
Of course people disagree with me. Those people also understand a simple rhetorical device that's beyond you, and don't get so pouty and whiney like a widdle baby.
Look at how silly you are, thinking I care what you think when you prissily make an assumption (that I'm relying on this article) and are then shot down.
LOL AWWWWW, the poor baby had his widdle feeeeeelings hurt because I don't give a damn about his ignorant opinion!
Thanks for the laughs, junior, now just a few more minutes of cartoons then off to bed!
Just keep pretending it is all about YOU and my need for your approval...
Newsweek climategate article
A college friend of mine who knows I write about climate change brought this Newsweek article to my attention today:
Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done
He wanted my opinion on it. I wrote a quick review of the article, and I’m reposting it (slightly modified) below.
Joe, this article is written by a women who either does not understand the issue, or is willing to further distort it. This is readily apparent in multiple ways, and I’ll highlight a few. You got my fingers going, so this is going to be fairly long.
The headline claims that multiple papers have retracted ‘climategate’ claims. She actually only quotes one paper (references another German paper), and here is the problem: Neither of these articles have anything to do whatsoever with climategate. It is a subtle misdirection, she opens up by talking about climategate then mentions the two article retractions, but there is no link between the two. Climategate was a leak or hack of emails from the CRU in Britian, the articles were talking about mistakes in the UN IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), two totally separate issues. This mistake invalidates the entire point of the article, but the mistakes don’t stop there.
Her opening statement speaks of climategate as a “highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal”, which is a hard pill to swallow. The emails were released on a relatively unknown blog, and bloggers (like me) went through the emails and found all the goodies ourselves. Even is this claim is to be believed, the author attempts to completely dismiss climategate by mentioning the ‘inquiries’ into Jones and Mann. The inquiry into Jones is almost comical in its brevity. Considering the gravity of the accusations and the serious implications of Jones cooking the books, the Oxburgh report was a total of....five pages. Not only that, but they didn’t keep any record of how they reached their conclusions that Jones was innocent, leaving us to simply trust them. The Mann investigation was just as bad. Penn State had little incentive to chastise the man who gets them millions every year in funding.
If it is hard for you to believe that both of these investigations could be farces, let me simply direct you to the climategate e-mails themselves. Anyone who claims that climategate is a non-issue has not read the e-mails, or doesn’t understand them. Read them here (I can highlight a few of the better ones if you desire):
Yet another problem with the article is the focus on ONE mistake in the AR4. This is still regarded by many to be a mistake, but even if you throw out this Amazon claim the AR4 is still full of mistakes. The false glacier claim is the most well known, but there are many more, quite a few which yours truly has found. They claim that climate change will reduce African tourism, but their source doesn’t mention Africa or tourism. They claim Canadian wildfires substantially negatively affected the local economy, but their source actually shows positive gains. They claim that the mangroves in Bangladesh are being irreversibly damaged by climate change, yet their source only mentions Pakistan’s mangroves. They cite a newspaper article claiming that 1.3 billion agricultural workers will be negatively affected by climate change, yet the article doesn’t cite any study or article at all. These are just some of the mistakes I personally have found. Yet another IPCC mistake (at least it seems to be so far) was revealed just yesterday:
To claim that climategate is now rendered false by two newspaper’s retractions about a separate issue, and to go on and claim that the AR4 actually isn’t full of mistakes, is a lie. As Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.”
Obviously..WE...dont care what you think either...
I plowed through tons of the leaked E-mails myself...there were clear calls to delete e-mails to avoid FOIA requests...
You can play the motive game all you want...but those requests are fact...
Here’s the same writter admitting last year that the e-mails are genuine...but the science is sound:
I know when I’m being lied to...
AGW is the greatest SCAM in earths history to date.
For all your bluster you're not a very good reader, since that was my point.
And what's with getting all huffy about the word "WE", lighten up, Francis.
She's not the only one attempting that misdirection. It's going on right here on FR.
“lighten up, Francis.”
Dont call me francis!
Any of you homos touch my emails...and WE’ll kill ya! :P
Any of you homos touch my climate emails...and WE’ll kill ya! :P
Thanks for boiling it all down to one bottom line.
When I believe the media outlets, then I will believe Global Warming...
They cleared the CRU of deliberate scientific malfeasance.
And here's the thing. A civil body with no mandate from the Crown has no competence to declare motive. If they did, their opionion could be held to be libellous.