Climatologist Involved in Climategate 2.0 Opens Himself Up to Public Questions
- Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:48pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
LONDON (The Blaze/AP) — The British climatologist ensnared in a major new email leak took his case to the public Wednesday, arguing that he and his colleagues’ comments have again been taken out of context, “cherry picked” even.
Phil Jones (Photo: UEA)
The University of East Anglia’s Phil Jones was one of the major players in the controversy that erupted two years ago over the publication of emails which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and attacking them in sometimes vitriolic terms.
The University of East Anglia‘s Climatic Research Unit is one of the world’s leading centers for the study of how world temperatures have varied over time, and Jones came under particular scrutiny following the 2009 disclosures — even receiving death threats over allegations that he was a leading a conspiracy to hype the dangers of climate change.
Jones and his colleagues have since been vindicated by a series of independent investigations, but the university’s reputation has been dented by criticism that it refused to share data with skeptics.
Jones said that his “heart did sink a bit” when he heard about the most recent leak, which apparently consists of old messages held back the first time around.
The university and other climate scientists believe the leak was delayed until now “to cause maximum disruption” to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.
When quizzed about emails that captured him and other researchers disparaging each others’ work or raising pointed questions about the accuracy of climate models, Jones framed it as part of “the cut-and-thrust of scientific debate.”
Several excerpts also seemed to be aimed at how best to present scientific findings to the public, but Jones said it was “foolish to think that scientists don’t think about the how their message is received.”
Jones also was asked about a message he wrote suggesting that emails could be deleted to dodge freedom of information requests. Both he and his university have been criticized for obstructionist attitudes toward Britain’s right-to-know law, and the university. The U.K. Press Association reports University of East Anglia’s vice chancellor Professor Edward Acton as saying the university had its “knuckles rapped” over not being as open to sharing information but that it has become more compliant.
In his response, Jones appeared to suggest that the public need not interest itself in the inner workings of groups such as the International Panel on Climate Change, which produces authoritative reports on the future of the world’s weather.
“Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?” Jones said.
Other excerpts from the 5,000-odd emails being circulated seemed to cover some of the same ground as the 2009 release, which unleashed an international furor over allegations that scientists were working behind the scenes to manipulate the science behind climate change. Several inquiries have since refuted the charges.
Acton, who flanked Jones as he addressed journalists, predicted less of a storm this time around over what he said is “different phrases but as far as we can see, no new issues.”
“There’s is so much deja vu about it,” Acton said.
BBC’s Richard Black reports Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), as saying these emails should be met with a “collective yawn.” Black also states that the emails were obtained by hacking, not a leak as many believe. He doesn’t substantiate how he certainly knows this other than writing “ it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 674 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 527 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 395 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 369 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 262 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 272 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 135 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 262 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (115)
John 3:16
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:08pmThere has always been climate change, if you don’t believe me ask the dinasours.Golbal warming is as big of a hoax as our telepromptor president both are in it for their own profit or financial gain at the expense of others they can dupe.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:38amDon’t confuse the theory that “humans can cause global warming” with “all global warming is caused by humans”. This is a logical fallacy, and quite common on The Blaze.
Report Post »Awakened One
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 2:59pmAnd remember Foobear, man causing global warming is just a theory, if that. It’s more like a hypothesis that some vested interests are desperately trying to prove. The reward is for successful manipulation is huge. Manufacturing science is the preferred method. Stifling descent is essential. This is not science, it is agenda.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:43pm“And remember Foobear, man causing global warming is just a theory”
Remember, gravity is just a theory, too. Doesn’t make it any less real, though.
Don’t confuse “theory” (which means “best explanation for something” in science) with the incorrect usage “unproven hypothesis”.
Report Post »marion
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 7:05pmGravity may be a theory, but it does have factual existence, whether or not we know why it exists, but global warming being a theory, it is still an assumption that man is the reason for it.
At the same time, if, for some reason man is the reason GW supposedly exists, why is it that shuffling money from one to another without any results in its change the primary factor? I can understand having to change things for the safety of the planet, but since whatever is being planned or attempted to accomplish simply changes the price of doing the same thing, how can these individuals justify doing it to begin with?
Has anyone made the point that by reducing CO2 emissions we are essentially starving trees?
Report Post »And is the price of mushrooms and other fungii going to increase because they produce CO2?
foobear
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 12:17am@Marion: “Gravity may be a theory, but it does have factual existence, whether or not we know why it exists, but global warming being a theory, it is still an assumption that man is the reason for it.”
Global warming is real, no question about it. The facts show the earth is warming.
Anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming is what people argue over, but the facts also pretty conclusively demonstrate this to be true as well. Humans are producing certain amounts of CO2, that go into the atmosphere. CO2 can be shown in a laboratory to trap certain amounts of energy. Depending on how much energy is trapped, the earth heats up a certain amount.
“At the same time, if, for some reason man is the reason GW supposedly exists, why is it that shuffling money from one to another without any results in its change the primary factor?”
Don’t mistake me thinking AGW is real to saying that things like Kyoto or other carbon trading schemes are a good idea. They’re not. They’re quite badly, hideously designed schemes that will expose us to very expensive “solutions” that no nothing more than continue business as usual.
You need to learn to disassociate AGW from the solutions to AGW. If more Libertarians like me were on board with the solution designs, I think you’d see that it is indeed possible to create a small(ish) government solution to AGW without needing intrusive regulations or killing the economy.
Report Post »dmac225
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 1:24am@foobear…. I don’t know what your interest or level of “expertise” in climate study is but it seems you believe that a trace gas (CO2) that makes up a mere 300 parts per MILLION of the atmosphere is the main driver of global climate change. Another way to look at it is you believe that going from CO2 being .0030% of the atmosphere to CO2 being .00038% of the atmosphere is somehow significant.
Why do you continue to say “global warming is occurring” when the data shows no measurable increase in the global temperature for the last 10 years? That’s why most AGW proponents no longer call it “global warming” and now use the all encompassing term “climate change”.
Report Post »dmac225
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 1:31amoops…forgot a zero. it should read “going from .00030%… to .00038%”
Report Post »HumbleMan
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 3:25amGo back into your cave then. Flat-earth no growth communists love the “green” cool-aid. Destroy all industry and live in an agrarian society where all are equally poor, hungry and otherwise impoverished.
It’s greenies who “wish it so” in the face of evidence. Liberals praise science and reason while ignoring both.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 9:46am@DMAC: “I don’t know what your interest or level of “expertise” in climate study is but it seems you believe that a trace gas (CO2) that makes up a mere 300 parts per MILLION of the atmosphere is the main driver of global climate change. Another way to look at it is you believe that going from CO2 being .0030% of the atmosphere to CO2 being .00038% of the atmosphere is somehow significant.”
It’s quite obvious you have no expertise whatsoever, other than what you hear and repeat in the echo chamber. YES, an increase from 300ppm to 380ppm is actually very significant. This translates into the solar output (so to speak) going up by 1%. Again, you are probably confused by low that number appears to be.
Think about how much energy the sun produces. Now think about what a 1% increase actually means. I’ll give you a while.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 9:51am@Humble: “Go back into your cave then. Flat-earth no growth communists love the “green” cool-aid. Destroy all industry and live in an agrarian society where all are equally poor, hungry and otherwise impoverished.”
I’m hardly an environmentalist. I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life, only Republican and Libertarian candidates.
Don’t be stupid and think that just because global warming is true, that we need to move back into caves and shut down our economy… while some idiot Greens will say this, it’s absolutely not true.
“It’s greenies who “wish it so” in the face of evidence. Liberals praise science and reason while ignoring both.”
And yet any time a science article appears here on the Blaze, if it says something the Blazers don’t like, their go-to claim is that the scientists are secretly lying. You guys are the most anti-scientific bunch in the world.
Report Post »brntout
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:49pmWow ,thanks for the schooling.Me thinks I just got frac‘d and I’ll check out the metrology and then superimpose on the meteorology model and see where I went wrong.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:38pmThis man made global warming is all BS designed to make America a third world country,to lose our sovereignty and be controlled by the U.N.
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:12pmAgreed!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 12:36amAgreed.
China builds more Coal plants than we take off line. So if coal plants are the problem then we are skrewed.
Or the AGW people are liars!
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:39am@Walkabout: It’s neither one nor the other.
We could certainly shift off coal for nuclear without raising energy rates. China may or may not move to more green technologies as well in the future. They’re building tons of coal power plants, but they’re also building tons of green power plants as well. All the new ANWRs are in China, IIRC.
Report Post »B.Spin
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:31pmSo where exactly does Climastrologist Phil Jones answer questions from the public?Does he have a website or blog?.Can anyone from A.P. Blaze me in the right direction?. I can’t seem to remember what A.P.Stands for,I know the A stands for Associated but the P? Sorry have to go Ricks just phoned me.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:41amI’m not Phil Jones, but global warming is an area of study for me. I can answer any questions you have, probably.
Report Post »Cynic-clinic
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 11:30amOK FOO, answer this question: Is every single factor that could possibly affect global warming included in all the computer models used to make the climate change predictions that are being used to determine public policy. I won’t ask you to enumerate every factor unless you say YES to the question at which time you will have to list every one of the factors.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:45pm@Cynic: “OK FOO, answer this question: Is every single factor that could possibly affect global warming included in all the computer models used to make the climate change predictions”
No, of course not.
Can you enumerate all of the factors that go into weight loss or gain? No, again, of course not. But we still know that if you eat extra calories, you’ll tend to get fat. The details are only in *how* fat you’ll get from it.
AGW deniers are like people that claim that they can eat an extra piece of cake every day and never gain weight. It’s against both science and common sense.
Report Post »dmac225
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 12:54am@foobear… You readily admit that you (nor likely, anyone else) knows all of the variables that drive climate change and yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim you know that human activity is the major factor driving climate change. Then you attempt to deflect the discussion by bringing up losing weight, amazing. I will stay on topic and ask you a couple of questions…. 1) Why do the studies of the Volstok ice cores show that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in temperature? 2) Why do ice core studies show that, when the temperature does begin to decline, that during almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly? In fact, CO2 stays in the area of “maximum CO2 warming effect”. Oh, by the way, I could eat two extra pieces of cake every day and not gain weight. So your analogy fails.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 9:59am@DMAC: “You readily admit that you (nor likely, anyone else) knows all of the variables that drive climate change and yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim you know that human activity is the major factor driving climate change.”
You’re making an all-or-nothing fallacy. Shame on you – that’s the province of liberals. (What? This one power plant will kill one butterfly a year?!? Shut it down!)
Science deals in isolation of variables: teasing out what the contributions of different aspects are, and quantifying them (with error ranges for uncertainty). You can actually isolate and quantify the human contribution very easily. This is the part you don’t understand.
“Then you attempt to deflect the discussion by bringing up losing weight, amazing.”
It’s called an “analogy”. Google it some time. Jesus was fond of them, though people tend to call those parables.
It’s actually a very close analogy to the problem of global warming. Since you don’t seem to understand it, I’m equating getting fat to the temperature of the earth. The more calories you eat or the more energy you add to the earth’s energy balance, the fatter or hotter you’ll get. It’s common sense.
The science lies in teasing out exactly how much contribution each source has. If you eat 2000 calories of natural causes rice, and 200 calories of man-made pie per day, you can say the very delicious human contribution is about 10%.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 10:06am@DMAC: Again, read – http://www.skepticalscience.com/quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html or basically anything on RealClimate.org – they’re quite obviously politically biased, but their science is good.
To answer your questions: “1) Why do the studies of the Volstok ice cores show that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow increases in temperature?”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
“Oh, by the way, I could eat two extra pieces of cake every day and not gain weight. So your analogy fails.”
Mister, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Report Post »brickmoon
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:20pmIt’s hard enough for certain media to appear believable when they take jests and snippets of comments, twist them and make headlines like, “Glenn Beck Says Obama Will Make Us Eat Babies!” (not an actual example, but not far off)
How can one be accused of taking entire paragraphs that stand on their own and evince bias and manipulation, out of context?
Report Post »brntout
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:28pmRemember in writing class the paragraph set the premise ,and the rest of it was supposed to supprt and explaiin with fact?
Report Post »schattrton
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:17pmwhy do people need to know which person wrote which paragraph? why does this organization feel the need to keep this private? if a person feels the need to know, let them know, why not?
Report Post »chazmo
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:41pmBecause the truth would come out and the whole charade would be exposed for the BS it is. If you believe in what you are doing then you don’t have anything to hide. If it’s the “TRUTH” then why hide anything. The TRUTH has no agenda.
Report Post »snooop1e
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 9:47pmHmmmmmm, so basically what he is saying is, “I whole heartedly believe what I am saying and I know without a doubt I am right……… but please don’t tell anyone I am the one saying this…… just in case I’m wrong” You can’t have it both ways, if you sincerely believe what you are saying is accurate and correct come into the light. You can’t hide in the shadows and make anonymous predictions that effect the global economy, it doesn’t work that way…
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:54amPhil Jones has a big problem with secrecy. He was slapped down for it in the inquiry, and it looks like he’s still up to his old tricks.
That said, Chazmo, calling it a charade is just dishonesty on your part.
Report Post »Thevoice
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:54pmWait ..Barrack Obama’s supercommittee on climate change is going to realise their findings….From inside sources the major test involved using Nancy pelosi. She was left out in the sun. Nobel prise winning Climate scientists from all over the world took part in the experiment. They determined that if her face melted there was proof of climate change …Now you know why she got another new face…any other questions ..
Report Post »Fla Del
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:18pmEveryone needs to read —- Cold Sun by John L. Casey. He and his team have been 99% with their weather predictions for past and present. His outlook for the future is bleak. NASA, and many others are now supporting him.
Report Post »Rayblue
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:53pmLaid on with a trowel.
Proof they’re coming apart at the bulwarks.
It’s getting scarce on the net, but look up “Wel”, How the German SS were made to swear they believed in Horbingers theory of Eternal Ice.
Report Post »Also literature of Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier on the subject.
Mstr Smith
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:52pmIn metrology, measurement uncertainty is a non-negative parameter characterizing the dispersion of the values attributed to a measured quantity. The uncertainty has a probabilistic basis and reflects incomplete knowledge of the quantity. All measurements are subject to uncertainty and a measured value is only complete if it is accompanied by a statement of the associated uncertainty. Fractional uncertainty is the measurement uncertainty divided by the measured value.
Report Post »donflow
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:42pmThe problem is not the climate. The problem is politics. Make sure you have a food reserve and gold and/or silver. America as we know it is about to change big time…and you can blame Obama and the progressive movement. Mark my words…
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:50pmEXACTLY right. Politics is the hot air of the silliness of man made climate change.
Global warming/climate change = poppycock.
Report Post »1casawizard
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:37pmThere is a lot of publicity and money to be made voicing ones’ opinion. The biggest influence on our ball is from the sun. Its magnetic poles do a 180 flip on average of once every 11 years. The sun can get moody at times and peaceful at times. There is a recently discovered output of the sun which our instruments could not detect which can influence our climate. Like it or not, this ball is going to go through climate change. The media hype is because they want to keep their job (in my opinion). You are going to always have record breaking heat and cold. You get more info. about where we live from nasa.com. Nasa took a stand against these college know-nothings before but I guess the almighty dollar shut em up for now. A lot of these folks are pushing their ideas/books/colleges for fiscal benefit.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:48amNatural causes obviously have a large impact on our climate. There’s a lot of things, including volcanoes (which cool the earth substantially), fluctuations in solar output, particulate matter in the stratosphere, the ENSO, and so forth, that affect the climate.
Human activity affects the climate in addition to all that. Fortunately, it’s not impossible to calculate the individual contributions of all these different sources. For example: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/global-climate-drivers.PNG
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 11:34am[ Human activity affects the climate in addition to all that. Fortunately, it’s not impossible to calculate the individual contributions of all these different sources. ]
Human beings packed into a tight space can affect a large city interior temperature, which dissipates to non relevant as the heat rises, and is dispersed in the atmosphere. Mankind has NO effect on the long term balance of ebbs and flows of climate change. Even the concept is an idiocy. The ONLY thing an increase in carbon molecules has is to aide in the synthesis process for food fuel for plant life.
All the gerrymandering links in the world won’t change the truth. The governmental/scientific claims of man-made global warming/climate change isn’t merely wrong, it’s criminally wrong. It’s an even greater ponzi scheme than social security.
At one time the world was enveloped in a circle of ice in a level of the atmosphere and it had 1 distinct purpose. It made the content of oxygen and carbon abundant, thus larger tree’s, bigger animals, longer life.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:53pm@10thAmendment: “Human beings packed into a tight space can affect a large city interior temperature, which dissipates to non relevant as the heat rises, and is dispersed in the atmosphere.”
You’re talking about direct warming. If all global warming was was the effects of people leaving their heaters on during the winter, then yeah, it’d make a microscopic difference.
However, humanity *has* changed the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rather noticeably (about a 20% gain in just the last couple decades alone, and by about 50% since pre-industrial levels), which is worldwide, not a local phenomenon. This can be shown rather easily to result in effective a bit less than a 1% increase in solar output, which is rather significant.
“Mankind has NO effect on the long term balance of ebbs and flows of climate change.”
Until the industrial revolution, this was absolutely true. But you’ve been wrong for a hundred or so years now.
“The ONLY thing an increase in carbon molecules has is to aide in the synthesis process for food fuel for plant life.”
Nope.
“All the gerrymandering links in the world won’t change the truth.”
I don’t think you know exactly what the word gerrymandering means, my friend.
“It’s an even greater ponzi scheme than social security.”
I don’t think you know what a ponzi scheme is either.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 9:32pmCarbon change from 1900 to present is .03%. Virtually negligible.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 9:33pmI definitely know what a ponzi scheme is. Social security is the second largest in history. Only climate change is larger.
media matters I suspect is missing you by now.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 25, 2011 at 12:20am@10thAmendment: “Carbon change from 1900 to present is .03%. Virtually negligible.”
Uh, no. In 1900 it was around 300ppm, now it’s almost 400ppm. Perhaps you’re confused as to what decimals mean? A .33 change is not a 0.03% change, it’s a 33% increase instead.
“I definitely know what a ponzi scheme is. Social security is the second largest in history. Only climate change is larger.”
I know I’ll regret this, but is your theory really that climate change is happening because more and more people are buying into the notion of climate change?
Report Post »Spqr1
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:34pmHow can you have a climategate 2.0 when 1.0 was debunked by a Commons investigation?
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:14pmbecause the investigation was bunk
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:33pmWater Vapor Levels??
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:55pm“Water Vapor Levels??”
Yes, believe it or not, nature has a huge impact on the climate.
This doesn’t stop humanity from having an impact on the climate, as well. If you think that the slightly less than 1% increase in effective solar output is insignificant, stop and think about how much energy the sun produces every second.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:32pmYou just aren’t smart enough to understand
It takes a scientific mind to comprehend these issues
I am a Doctor, who are you to dispute my findings
Sure we had global warming before man, but not as much.
It‘s all those Republicans who drive SUV’s
Report Post »Mstr Smith
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:40pmFunny!
Report Post »Overmanwarrior
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:20pmThe earth is alway changing temperature. These idiot greenie weenie’s think the world will always stay one temperature, that the sun will never burn out, that our galaxy will never collade with another, or that the universe will continue forever. These small minded pretentious academics are simply clueless to the real science, and think they are the center of the universe and the earth will continue forever. I can’t believe anyone listens to them, yet the entire media is just as clueless.
The whole situation is a complete joke!
http://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/legalized-plunder-you-have-been-scammed-at-every-level/
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:51amYes, the climate is always changing. That‘s why I seriously hate the left’s attempt to reframe global warming as “climate change”. It’s a tautology.
That said, it is possible both for the climate to always be changing, AND for humans to contribute to global warming, in a significant fashion. It’s not either/or. Think about it.
Report Post »MrMagoo
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:16pmFollow the MONEY TRAIL.Green energy,climate change,scientists and the environMental movement. All of these are perpetrating a HOAX that would make John Corzine or J.Abramhoff proud.
Report Post »Jack of Hearts
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 3:22amHow much did you say the Koch brothers are paying you?
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:15pmYOU CAN TELL THIS IS AN AP REPORT ………….. those allegations were not refuted at all …………..they “ investigated” themselves, and stated they found THEY had done nothing wrong
the whole climate change / warming / cooling debate intent is all monetary …………..funds/ grants/ and government spending in the trillions for “green tech” and to further fund more “ studies” ……
every study is unfounded, and every computer model is completely bogus . even the FACT that historical carbon levels rose AFTER temperature rises is intentionally overlooked and left out of every report . if carbon rises AFTER temperature rises, then how could that said carbon CAUSE the rise in temp. ???????? reason…………..carbon is the only thing they can remotely get a way with taxing pure and simple
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 4:53amThey didn’t investigate themselves. A board of inquiry (from the House of Lords? Something like that) was formed and exonerated them on all charges EXCEPT for avoiding FOIA requests and maintaining an unscientific culture of secrecy. (They didn’t want skeptics to be able to refute them.)
Climategate 1 in a nutshell: It discovered real problems with secrecy and access to data, but it didn’t uncover fraud or anything like that.
Report Post »brntout
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:15pmThey are going to use HAARP to help to induce severe weather patterns to attempt to justify their claims,
Report Post »brntout
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 8:03pmStarted with the unique by-product of emf force fom Philidelphia Experiment,through DARPA and then compartmentalized to Alaska under the HAARP program.Wonder why they just had that huge storm?
Report Post »Komponist-ZAH
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:15pmJones said it was “foolish to think that scientists don’t think about the how their message is received.”
Yes, I can just see Isaac Newton fretting over how people would “receive” the whole gravity thing
Report Post »Doug in Seattle
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:10pmLiars, hacks and frauds. The new emails show greater depth to the crimes of these so called “scientists”. And the leaker has left another 220,000 emails in locked files for the next round of release.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:06pmThe sad part of my last post is Romney can’t beat Obama, 4 more years of Obama, Canada or Mexico anyone?
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:05pmIt’s BS, the whole damn global warming thing.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:04pmOFF TOPIC:
Report Post »The drive has started since last night’s debate to take Newt out of first place in the polls, that’s FOX News, the lamestream media and GBTV and the Blaze. They will do this to every candidate that gets on top in the lineup until Romney finally sits on top with his democrat supporters and the useful idiots that take all the media’s bait!
korbin
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 7:03pmAgenda 21, all the way. The UN is poised to assist Obummer in the collapse of the US.
look here, democratsagainstagenda21.com this is one left wing liberal who gets it.
Report Post »timej31
Posted on November 23, 2011 at 6:59pmThis person STILL WORKS THERE?????!!! Gawd you can’t seriously take anything coming from this man as serious at all. What a JOKE.
Report Post »foobear
Posted on November 24, 2011 at 5:00amHe was dismissed from his position of head of the CRU, but yes, he still works there as Climategate didn’t find any actual evidence of fraud or “hoaxing” or whatever the hell Blazers think Climategate actually proved.
He was removed from his position for the one thing he DID do wrong, which is to avoid FOIA requests and to only share his data with people he liked.
Report Post »