Sharon Begley lays it out:
[N]ot 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 claim — namely, 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.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
I realize I’m being intellectually dishonest by not pointing out that Al Gore got a massage, but that’s the way it is.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Didn’t Mann start moon-walking efficacy of the hockey stick graph just this week or was that missed by the MSM?
Seems as the proponents for AGW are doing all the retrenching these days.
Maybe there are two Mrs. Lincoln’s in the audience? Or mabye one Mrs. Lincoln and one Mrs. Kennedy?
Shocking recent weather news
MEMPHIS, Tenn. – Victims of the devastating floods that swept through Shelby County now have an extension to apply for disaster benefits Jun 25, 2010
The Associated Press – John Seewer – Meghan Barr – Jun 7, 2010
Ohio police chief revises tornado death toll to 5
Bowersox talks about tornadoes during visit
Toledo Blade – Kirk Baird – 2 days ago
It was also her first trip home since deadly tornadoes ripped through the area and devastated parts of southeast Michigan and northwest Ohio – including …
In other news, Al Gore is fat.
Don’t tornadoes go through the midwest a lot this time of year? Seems to me that there is an extensive record that says they do.
Gee, there was even one in Worcester a number of years ago.
Water spouts, tornadoes by another name, have been sighted in Rhode Island Sound and Buzzards Bay. Saw one of those myself a number of years ago.
So your point Mr. Sagan IS?
Any comments on Mann’s moon walking and the mainstream media’s lack of interest in interesting revelations that undermine the party line?
Or are we trying to divert attention to something less embarrassing for the home team?
@L.K. Collins says: Any comments on Mann’s moon walking and the mainstream media’s lack of interest in interesting revelations that undermine the party line?
Second time you’ve mentioned that, yet you’ve provided no links or information supporting that he’s “moonwalked” away from anything.
With all due respect, put up or shut up.
I’m not on a team Collins. People who claim climate change is a ruse frequently make nonsensical arguments such as, Al Gore is fat.
@LK has a point, Neil (and I hope he remembers it).
Weather is not climate. Particular examples of tornadoes or floods have no bearing on whether climate change is “real”.
The fact that the past 5 months have been the second hottest on record, however, is. You’ve noticed how the climate change denialists have gone so quiet about their “global cooling” canard? That’s why.
@Steve: And even the fact that the past five months have been unusually hot would be meaningless if it were not also true that the past decade was the hottest on record, the ’90s were the second-hottest and the ’80s were the third-hottest.
The earth has heated and cooled numerous times before the industialization of men and womean. Carbon dioxide is less than .038% of the earth’s atmosphere. It is intellectually dishonest to quote weather records when you consider that they are statitistically insignificant in relation to the length of time the earth has produced weather. Cap and tax is as dead as a doornail. Only someone as dense as Kerry would continue to promote it.
@Phil: What are your qualifications for disputing the vast majority of atmospheric scientists?
Mr. Sagan, your team loyalties are on show for all tosee. Others will judge for themselves.
BP Meyrs, you may want to check this article at the Telegraph and rethink your assessment of Prof. Mann’s thoughts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html
Key paragraphs:
“…However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were “uncertainties” in his work.
“I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,” he said….
It’s either a quote from him, or it isn’t. I guess the BBC interview tape would give you that definitive answer. Care to challenge them?
It’s put up like you requested.
So, now, what spin do you wish to provide?
@Phil Gallagher says: Cap and tax is as dead as a doornail.
With not the slightest prospect of resurrection?
Phil Gallagher argues about conclusions most authoritatively made by climatologists.
What do climatologists (scientists) conclude about the climate and its causes? Do they conclude “weather records are insignificant” or more importantly man-made green house gases have no causal link with a decades long increase in temperatures and that that has no causal link with climate change in the form of an increase in catastrophic weather”?
Phil Gallagher argues about the politics of energy and environmental policy using right-wing news source terminology IE “Cap and tax”.
What do the popular polls say about support for this provision in proposed legislation?
@L.K. Collins says: So, now, what spin do you wish to provide?
Yeah, I read that too but figured it couldn’t possibly be what you were talking about. Don’t see him “moonwalking” away from anything there.
Of course there are uncertainties. Did you think there weren’t? Is that the big “news” that the “MSM” won’t report on?
Hilarious.
I submit it is you who are doing the spinning.
Its not your place to draft me for your opposition’s roster. I don’t oppose you. I’m not on the team you oppose. Joining a team is a player’s option. You know, two parties have the freedom to make a contract, etc… I’m not on Dan’s team. I’m not on your team. I’m not on a team. I rely on my own reason to make conclusions about topics I am interested in. Perhaps you’re projecting.
@Phil,
Any chance you can explain what you mean by including this? this: “Carbon dioxide is less than .038% of the earth’s atmosphere”? It sounds like decontextualized numbers junk that’s just supposed to appear to have inherent meaning.
800mg ibuprofen will have a pretty good effect on a 100kg guy. That’s .0008% — are we to believe that’s insignificant?
For that matter, a guy of the same size could be killed botulism toxin measured in parts per million. As much as I suspect you’re trying to be scientifically disingenuous here, I wouldn’t like it if you drank .038% botox in solution, or became .038% botox yourself.
Ah… An on-point, self-critical quote obtained from the principal and reported by a fairly credible news outlets is spin!
‘Twarn’t bluffin’ and ya know it! Nice try. 😀
Kool-Aid’s available over there on the left!
My Sagan: My observation. You are free to disagree.
But as said before, it is for others to judge.
@L.K. Collins says: An on-point, self-critical quote obtained from the principal and reported by a fairly credible news outlets
Err . . . there was nothing self-critical or even new in what he offered.
In fact, he co-authored a paper in 1999 entitled, “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.”
Perhaps the fact there are uncertainties in climate science is “news” to you — and that’s okay, none of us know everything — but it’s not news to those who have been paying attention.
@BP: Here is the operative quote from Mann: “I’m aware, and many researchers now are keenly aware, of the depths to which the climate-change disinformation movement is willing to sink.” (From today’s New York Times.)
Really? I am “free to disagree” with your assertions about me?
How generous and magnanimous of you.
Then you are clear as to why skeptics of the AGM claim view the constant reiteration of an iffy conclusion as fact is so disingenuous. Dan has yet to understand the limitations of the science and even more so the variables that can make up the science of climate.
Oh, and glad you agree, Mr. Sagan.
@L.K.: Yeah, Dan and the vast majority of atmospheric scientists. We all bow to your expertise.
Sinking beyond the bottom of ethical scientific method seems to have been high on the agenda of some of the climate scientists….
….And a lot of the commenter pass over this not-so-minor little detail.
Great series, Dan. I’m no expert, but I’ve seen nothing to convince me that climate change isn’t happening. Are we causing it? I think the jury’s still out on that, but that doesn’t mean we can play ostrich. We may be in a cyclical change, but that doesn’t mean we can’t at least try corrective action. A primary rule in navigation is that a little corrective action early prevents a panic situation later.