For years the global warming alarmists' mantra has been "the science is settled." But a recent series of shocking disclosures about climate science has shaken the credibility of that claim.
The first scandal - ClimateGate - came Nov. 20, 2009, after someone leaked thousands of e-mails from a major climate science group: University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The e-mails were full of startling admissions like this one: "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment."
A day after Minnesotans For Global Warming pulled their "Hide the Decline" video from YouTube at the request of ClimateGate scientist Michael Mann, all versions of this global warming satire were apparently removed from the powerful website.
As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, M4GW received a threat from Mann's representatives stating that if the video was not taken down, he would sue.
After M4GW complied with Mann's request, the No Cap and Trade Coalition posted a new version of "Hide the Decline" on YouTube.
Unfortunately on Wednesday, this new version AND all related videos were removed from YouTube supposedly due to a copyright claim by JibJab Media, Inc.
According to M4GW's Elmer Beauregard, this makes no sense ("Hide the Decline II" video embedded below the fold courtesy Breitbart TV):
ClimateGate scientist Michael Mann has threatened Minnesotans For Global Warming with legal action if their hit video "Hide the Decline" is not removed from YouTube.
As NewsBusters reported in November, M4GW, in response to highly incriminating e-mail messages hacked from the British Climatic Research Unit weeks earlier, created an absolutely delicious version of the Tommy James and the Shondells' classic "Draggin' the Line."
On Tuesday, M4GW informed their many fans that for financial reasons they have complied with Mann's request.
Fortunately, the No Cap and Trade Coalition has made a new version of "Hide the Decline," and they are hoping Mann tries to sue them claiming, "The legal discovery process would give us an opportunity to expose Dr. Mann's research - or lack thereof to public and legal scrutiny" (new video follows with excerpts of M4GW's announcement):
The editorial page at Investor's Business Daily noticed what the major media ignored or downplayed, once again: the latest Climategate development. They headlined their Friday editorial "Climategate Gets a Whitewash." The University of East Anglia commissioned two independent inquiries into what became known as the Climate-gate scandal. But just how "independent" was the latest report? IBD wasn't impressed with the five-page report that found no deceitful practices:
The sugarcoated report should be no surprise. The probe was conducted by Lord Oxburgh, an academic who was briefly chairman of Shell. He is now, according to the Financial Post, chair of Falck Renewables, a firm that has wind farms across Europe, and chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, "a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1 trillion industry by 2050."
Imagine that. A man with a financial interest in companies that would benefit from efforts to arrest man-made global warming is asked to look into the possible scientific malpractice of researchers whose conclusions are favorable to his business concerns.
USA Today on Thursday devoted a front page story to defending one of the key scientists involved in November's ClimateGate scandal.
In a piece entitled "Questions about research slow climate change efforts," author Brian Winter -- oh the irony! -- omitted important information about Penn State University's controversial global warming alarmist Michael Mann while downplaying the seriousness of the e-mail messages at the heart of the matter.
The main article also dishonestly ignored how Mann is being investigated by his own university concerning his involvement in the scandal, and actually NEVER even mentioned the scientist's infamous "Hockey Stick" graph that has been widely discredited by climatologists and meteorologists around the world.
Instead of a fair and balanced treatment of Mann and issues related to his view of anthropogenic global warming, readers were unfortunately presented with a grossly one-sided and disingenuous report evident in the very first paragraphs:
It's like Christoper Joyce of National Public Radio is completely unaware of ClimateGate. Phil Jones? Never heard of him. Oh, he is the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit who now admits manipulating data? No matter. You see, we have our minds made up and the reason people are becoming increasingly skeptical about "climate change" aka global warming is that they have a narrow worldview. Such is the laughable premise put out there by NPR's Joyce:
Over the past few months, polls show that fewer Americans say they believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite a raft of scientific reports that say otherwise.
This puzzles many climate scientists — but not some social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs.
The top United Nations climate change official said today that he has made the “difficult decision” to step down from his position, citing his desire to pursue new opportunities to advance progress on the issue in both the private sector and academia.
.... Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement that he was informed by Mr. de Boer of his decision two days ago and respected his decision, but “with regret.”
“Developing countries need to move as quickly as possible toward a future of low-emissions growth and prosperity,” he stressed, noting that millions of people in Africa and around the world are suffering from climate change’s effects.
These people are still living in the fantasy world they have constructed over the past two decades.
The absolutely stunning global warming revelations this weekend by the man in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal have gone almost completely ignored by America's press.
As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Phil Jones, the head of the British Climatic Research Unit at the heart of ClimateGate, told the BBC: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.
Jones also admitted that he and his fellow scientists manipulated figures to hide a decline in crucial tree-ring data thereby questioning the validity of the entire global warming theory.
Despite the seriousness of these revelations, much as what happened when the ClimateGate scandal first broke, with the exception of Fox News -- and a lone report by CNN -- America's media have almost totally boycotted this amazing story:
The British scientist in the middle of November's ClimateGate scandal says that contrary to what Al Gore and many in the media claim, the debate concerning manmade global warming is not over.
"There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well," Phil Jones, the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit told the BBC.
In a lengthy Q&A published at BBC.com Saturday, Jones also said: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented.
Maybe most important, Jones explained what "hide the decline" in ClimateGate e-mail messages meant confirming they manipulated data (questions in bold, h/t Sonic Frog via Glenn Reynolds):
Since the AP science reporter wrote his December 12, 2009 defense of the alleged scientists who have promoted the alleged perils of human-caused global warming, the scandal known as ClimateGate has inexorably widened. It has deeply tarnished never-deserved reputations; revealed the entire premise to be based on fraudulent, corrupted, manipulated and/or nonexistent data; and taken the entire enterprise to the point where it is utterly without objective credibility.
Thus, it would be understandable if poor Seth might be looking for some way, any way, to inject in his two cents yet again without being forced to defend the indefensible.
He found a bit of an outlet on Friday in his coverage of this year's virtually unprecedented U.S. snowfalls. How unprecedented? This may be the first time 49 out of 50 states have snow on the ground at the same time.
Here are key factual paragraphs relating to the U.S. situation in Borenstein's report, followed by his veer-off into global warming near its end (bolded by me):
East Anglia University, which came under fire a few months ago for the now infamous ClimateGate email scandal, announced yesterday that it is launching an independent probe into the work of its Climate Research Unit (CRU).
Wall Street Journal's Guy Chazan reports the story today -- found on page A15 of the print edition -- noting that the independent review led by Sir Muir Russell will "reappraise the CRU's scientific conclusions."
But Chazan noted that some critics argue that a deeper problem underpinning ClimateGate is not addressed by the probe:
On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric lamented the impact ClimateGate and other recent scandals involving fraudulent global warming data have had on the climate change debate: “Experts insist the overall conclusion remains the same, that climate change is real, but...such errors provide ammunition to skeptics.”
In a report that followed, correspondent Mark Phillips cited accusations of data tampering against Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, but explained: “An academic board today cleared Mann, saying his science holds up, but the damage may have already been done.” Phillips went on to detail other data errors, including a false United Nations climate panel report on melting Himalayan glaciers and the ClimateGate scandal at Britain’s East Anglia University.
Phillips observed how the “series of gaffes by climate change scientists,” has created “a frustrating time for those who believe the basic science in global warming remains true.” A clip was then played of Imperial College London climatologist Brian Hoskins fretting: “it appears the whole edifice has been undermined by these couple of bricks that are flaking a bit.”
Phillips concluded his report by explaining the real problem facing global warming advocates: “The scientists may still believe they’re winning the scientific argument, but they’re in danger of losing the public relations war.”
Yesterday, Media Research Center (MRC) President and NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell sat down in the MRC studio for a Skype interview with Breitbart.tv's "B-cast." [see video embed below the page break]
The topic: the latest MRC special report, "Omitting for Obama," which is a study of four stories --- Van Jones, Anita Dunn, ACORN, and ClimateGate -- "highlighted by the New Media in 2009 that were damaging to the Obama 'brand'" but were avoided like the plague by the old guard mainstream media.
CNN on Tuesday highlighted the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change use of a unsubstantiated claim about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 to put pressure on politicians across the globe. Meteorologist Rob Marciano thought the “snafu” on the part of the IPCC was “inexcusable,” while anchor Rick Sanchez put the panel and its head on his “List You Don’t Want to Be On.”
Marciano brought up the week-old story during a segment 49 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour. He played a sound bite from climatologist Jim White, who was attending the annual Steamboat Springs Weather Summit in Colorado (Marciano was on-location in Steamboat Springs). The CNN meteorologist voiced his agreement with White, who blasted the IPCC’s exaggeration:
A 2007 warning from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would be completely gone by 2035 due to global warming may be retracted in the coming days.
New revelations concerning this claim indicate that it actually came from a 1999 article in a scientific journal that was in no way verified by any members of the IPCC.
As Britain's Sunday Times reported Sunday, in the wake of ClimateGate e-mail messages showing IPCC scientists manipulating climate data, a retraction of this Himalayan glacier warning would further undermine claims by these people that the science is settled concerning man's role in global warming (h/t Ed Morrissey):
A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June.
As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph," for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming.
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned:
The one good thing you can say about Andrew Freedman's "Cold weather in a hot climate" entry at the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang blog (HT James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web) is that he's at least not hiding his bias.
Boiling it down, Freedman believes that weather broadcasters should use the occasions of heat waves and serious storms as global warming teachable moments, yet become strict info relayers when it's extraordinarily cold. In doing so, he advocates a continuation of what Julie Seymour at the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute has already observed:
The news media constantly misuse extreme weather examples to generate fear of global warming, but when record cold or record snow sets in journalists don’t mention the possibility of global cooling trends. While climatologists would say weather isn’t necessarily an indication of climate, it has been in the media, but only when the weather could be spun as part of global warming.
PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler agreed with conservative letter-writers that the NewsHour covered Climategate "lightly and well after the fact," even though he expressed the standard liberal belief that the "overwhelming" evidence is on the man-made dramatic warming side, and there's a "danger of establishing false equivalence" -- in other words, the liberals have more truth on their side.
But in a letter solicited from Getler, NewsHour senior producer Murrey Jacobson refused to admit any imbalance, even as he suggested their coverage has properly centered on "this fact: The majority of leading scientists here and abroad say that evidence is pointing to a warming planet; that the problem is getting worse; and that human activity contributes to that problem."
In his letter, Russell Cook of Phoenix, Arizona took issue with Jim Lehrer citing his "rules" for reporting, including his pledge to avoid one-sidedness:
Climate alarmists have put enormous pressure on the western media to suppress knowledge of facts inconvenient to their scientific arguments using a variety of methods to supress dissenting opinion.
Besides threatening journalists, promoting the use of Nazi-esque insults like the word "deniers," and bullying scientists who publish research papers critical of their near-religious beliefs, alarmists have taken to the web with aplomb, most famously exposed in the ongoing "ClimateGate" scandal.
Engaging in politicized science via email isn't the only cyber activity that left-enviro activists engage in however. Wikipedia is also a favorite target, particularly for a British global warming activist named William Connolley who seems to have made it his life's mission to censor climate realists in the online encyclopedia.
In September 2006 when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called George W. Bush the Devil at the United Nations, the Bush-hating press couldn't get enough of the comment.
On Friday, Chavez spoke to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen after President Obama made his keynote address, and much as he did three years ago, the Venezuelan despot said, "It still smells of sulfur here," referring to the lectern.
Given the attention Chavez's claim got three years ago when he made it about Bush, how will Obama-loving media report such a statement being made about their hero? (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Fausta):
The exposure of ClimateGate and the impending failure of the Copenhagen climate summit have the global warming community on the ropes. And to add insult to their injury, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has taken his one-man truth squad to Copenhagen, to continue to underscore just how absurd the idea of anthropogenic global warming is.
That has drawn the ire of the left, which knows it's losing momentum here and abroad as the Copenhagen summit is nearing the end. And that has enticed two prominent left-wing heroes, MSNBC "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart to taking on Inhofe.
On Olbermann's Dec. 14 broadcast, he awarded Inhofe the second-place prize in his "Worst Persons in the World" segment, based on Inhofe disputing the so-called "warmest decade on record" talking point that is a favorite of global warming alarmists and is based on narrowly interpreted climate data.
United Nations security officials have once again prevented a journalist from asking attendees at the climate change conference in Copenhagen questions about the growing ClimateGate scandal.
This time, the person on the receiving end of the apparently forbidden queries was Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
Much as when Ireland's Phelim McAleer tried to ask Stanford professor Stephen Schneider questions Thursday about the controversial e-mail messages obtained from the British Climatic Research Unit last month, McAleer was similarly rebuffed by Gore and his entourage Monday.
Not only did the former Vice President completely refuse to answer questions about his blatant misrepresentations of the age of the most recent e-mail message obtained from Britain's CRU, a U.N. security official actually disconnected McAleer's microphone to make sure any answers would be unrecorded (video embedded below the fold, h/t Climate Depot):
Notice how the mainstream media pretty much avoids the inconvenient scandal of ClimateGate? Although this scandal seems to mark the end of blind faith in the global warming dogma, it could also represent the final act of the long MSM suicide that has been going on for the past few years. That is the assertion made by author, broadcaster, and columnist Gerald Warner in a fascinating UK Telegraph article:
Climategate is a global household name. No cat has ever emancipated itself more completely from the bag. It is a world-wide scandal – thanks to the internet. Yet, as its ramifications proliferate and dominoes continue to fall, the most repeatedly asked question online is: how can the mainstream media ignore this? Well, we know the answer to that: the MSM are in thrall to the leftist consensus. End of story.
The Climatic Research Unit at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal has taken down most of the information previously available at its website.
Prior to November's release of controversial e-mail messages and documents from Britain's University of East Anglea, there was a separate website for the institution's CRU that allowed readers to review articles and studies created by and for the Unit.
Now, no matter what link one tries to access via a Google search, it directs you to a page that reads: "Due to the present high volume of visitors to this page, you will shortly be directed to the latest news about CRU on the main University of East Anglia website, or you can go there immediately by clicking on this link."
Once there, readers are exclusively offered the follow:
Network journalists who were quick to see racists, haters and extremists amongst the “tea party” protesters were oblivious on Saturday to communists in the “climate justice” march in Copenhagen whose cause they trumpeted -- even as the video they showed included brief shots of marchers waving red flags displaying the Soviet Union's hammer and sickle.
“The streets were filled today with tens of thousands of protesters from around the world, demanding action to stop global warming,” NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt announced before Anne Thompson marveled: “An extraordinary sight in front of Denmark's parliament building: 35,000 protesters filling the square, stepping off on a slow march with an urgent plea: Save the planet.”
On the CBS Evening News, anchor Jeff Glor touted how “around the world tonight, protesters are creating heat over climate change. In Copenhagen, where UN talks on global warming are under way, police estimate 40,000 activists marched, mostly peacefully, to demand an agreement that produces real change.” Reporter Sheila MacVicar began: “From India to Australia, from China to Copenhagen, tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets.”
Nobel Laureate Al Gore should debate former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and all those who don't believe man is responsible for global warming.
So said MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe Friday in an appearance on "Countdown."
This was in response to substitute anchor Lawrence O'Donnell bringing up Palin's answer to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham's question concerning the former Governor debating Gore about climate change.
What followed was rather comical if you understand how many people from around the world have challenged the Global Warmingist-in-Chief to a head-to-head without him once accepting (video embedded below the fold courtesy our friend Story Balloon, relevant section at 3:50):
"Well, what do you think when you read these miserable people in The Wall Street Journal op-ed pages? And I -- I picked The Wall Street Journal. I don't get it. There's some kind of culture out there that sits around and talks to itself, and pleases -- pleasures itself, I should say, over the argument that there isn't any climate change. What is in their breakfast that makes them do this? Why do they ignore science? Maybe they're the same people that ignore the evidence of evolution and millions of years of bones. What is it about them that just -- and they're -- and they're pandered to by the editors of The Wall Street Journal and other organs, like Fox News."
A Stanford professor with ties to Nobel Laureate Al Gore and the growing ClimateGate scandal used United Nations security officials at the climate conference in Copenhagen to halt questions about e-mail messages obtained from Britain's Climatic Research Unit.
Dr. Stephen Schneider was speaking at the Bella Centre Thursday when Irish journalist Phelim McAleer began asking about ClimateGate.
McAleer is known for his documentary "Not Evil, Just Wrong," which challenged the content of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as for confronting the former Vice President during a lecture in October only to have his microphone turned off.
According to a video just posted at Big Government, UN security officials stepped in when McAleer tried to ask the Professor inconvenient questions (video embedded below the fold):
Despite appearing on CNN and MSNBC Wednesday, Nobel Laureate Al Gore was apparently too busy to discuss global warming on the premiere episode of John Stossel's new Fox Business Network program.
To kick off his new show Thursday, Stossel chose the controversial subject of climate change, and invited on a number of guests to address the issue in great detail.
According to an e-mail message sent to Stossel's producers on November 23, "the growing influence of the climate crisis message and the demand on Mr. Gore's time" made it impossible for the former Vice President to attend.
Of course, Gore's busy schedule didn't prevent him from being interviewed by CNN and MSNBC on Wednesday, nor did it stop him from appearing on NBC's "Saturday Night Live" just two days before he declined Stossel's invitation.
I guess even an esteemed Nobel Laureate has to understand his limitations (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):