Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics ( Really?)

New Scientist ^ | 15:54 14 December 2009 | Michael Marshall and Michael Le Page

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.

If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am going to add some material to this:

Starting with this from the JoNva website in Australia, the locale of the most deliberate modification of climate date.

***************************EXCERPT************************

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/new-scientist-becomes-non-scientist/

******************************

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps  away any journalistic credibility they might have had.

I’ve added my own helpful notes into the New Scientist article, just so you get the full picture.

***********************************

The above from the JoNova website.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[markomalley]

Why post something from the New Scientist Propagandist magazine?

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[a fool in paradise]

A hundred years ago the study of eugenics and somatyping was used to defend forced sterilization in the US and the holocaust in Germany.

[MrB]

Man's contribution to the greenhouse effect amounts to statisticaly noise:
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of Greenhouse Effect	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

[cripplecreek]

I know there are trillions of dollars at stake and I know the climatologists are very aware of what the grant givers want to see.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

They need to explain this:

The Evolution of the Global Temperature Record ( Skullduggery with Darwin, Australia records)

And the Graphic:

[Da Coyote]

For basic physics, New Scientist is great.

For anything else, it’s TIME of Britain.

I know - I started reading it whilst a student at Oxford and subscribed for years. Dropped it a couple of years ago because their “science” reached “progressive idiocy” levels.

[dila813]

It isn’t 10s of Thousands, only 50 or so scientists have been spinning the research of global destruction warming.

[a fool in paradise]

Why redistribute trillions from the US to the Third World if the goal is just to reduce global carbon production? Why permit China and India to ramp up carbon byproduct?

Force everyone to new technologies and don’t use Marxist plans to funnel money to third world despots.

[Pietro]

How about these people address the real issues exposed by Climategate.

I guess their starting to feel some heat.

[KarlInOhio]

If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a century should be thrown out

Evidence thown out? No, we should just restart with the original weather measurements because the methodology is in question... now if we can just find the landfill all the original raw data was dumped into.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So we can expose it!

[saganite]

Citing the E-mails is the fallback position for the defenders of those scientists. However, the real story lies in the rest of that data, namely the programs used to manipulate the data. That’s far more damning than the E-mails. Also, I haven’t seen the other institutions that supply the IPCC with data stepping up to reveal that East Anglia is an outlier and the data presented by them will correct the record. We’re waiting.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More on the Australian Fraud....FR Thread:

The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Tzimisce]

You know, Sometimes the facts get in the way of the truth...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See the updates above.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Another related thread:

The Green Mask Is Being Peeled Away From The CO²mmunists – All Eyes Now On Copenhagen