Saturday, December 05, 2009
Gore Wrong on the Snows of Kilimanjaro
House Democrat Facing Ethics Inquiry
Krauthammer's Take
UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row
Notice how the BBC frame the debate? The "row" isn't a row, it's the biggest scientific scandal of the century. And, it's not just about the emails, it's about the scandal they reveal.
Note the use of "claims" as if there is some doubt about this scandal. No one is making "claims", they're merely pointing to the damning emails where these so called scientists bragged about manipulating the data. Or the one's where they admit to deleting data, damning emails and colluding to keep dissenting scientific views from publication.
But the BBC, along with the few media outlets even reporting on the story, tries to make this about the leakers and try cast doubt on their "claims".
"Claims", "allegations", all words the BBC use to cast doubt on the whole scandal. The police may well be investigating possible hacking, but shouldn't these "scientist" who illegally dodged Freedom of Information requests be prosecuted?
The BBC goes on to try and cast doubt on the scandal without printing any of the emails at the center of the "row". Astounding! After a lengthy report on the greatest scientific scandal of the world, the poor BBC reader is left wondering, "what the hell are they talking about?".
Which is, after all, the point. If the BBC is challenged on why it is not covering the story, it can point to this and say they covered it. Ah, but without informing the public what it's all about.
Here's a report from Canada that does a far better job.
Even comedian, Jon Stewart does a better job than the BBC.
"The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated."
Note the use of "claims" as if there is some doubt about this scandal. No one is making "claims", they're merely pointing to the damning emails where these so called scientists bragged about manipulating the data. Or the one's where they admit to deleting data, damning emails and colluding to keep dissenting scientific views from publication.
But the BBC, along with the few media outlets even reporting on the story, tries to make this about the leakers and try cast doubt on their "claims".
"The allegations emerged after e-mails written and received by UK climate researchers appeared on the Internet.
The police are investigating whether the scientists' computers were hacked. "
"Claims", "allegations", all words the BBC use to cast doubt on the whole scandal. The police may well be investigating possible hacking, but shouldn't these "scientist" who illegally dodged Freedom of Information requests be prosecuted?
The BBC goes on to try and cast doubt on the scandal without printing any of the emails at the center of the "row". Astounding! After a lengthy report on the greatest scientific scandal of the world, the poor BBC reader is left wondering, "what the hell are they talking about?".
Which is, after all, the point. If the BBC is challenged on why it is not covering the story, it can point to this and say they covered it. Ah, but without informing the public what it's all about.
Here's a report from Canada that does a far better job.
Even comedian, Jon Stewart does a better job than the BBC.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Al Gore confronted over Climategate - video
More jihadists at Ft. Hood?
New York Times health care scam
First Climategate and now this. Ever notice how it's always the left making this stuff up?
Labels: Science
Climategate scientists turning on each other?
This could get interesting.
Did one of their own leak the emails?
If they all turn on each other we may learn a great deal more.
Gore cancels climate conference event
Did one of their own leak the emails?
If they all turn on each other we may learn a great deal more.
Gore cancels climate conference event
Labels: Science
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Huffington Post Suffers ClimateGate Panic Attack
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Climategate: No data = no science
Obama adopts Bush's Afghanistan policies
The quintessential Andrew Sullivan
Charles smacks Sullivan.
Why Sullivan is still read and why he still writes for the London Times (if he still does) is a mystery to me.
Note Sullivan's correction and apology at the end of Charles article.
Now, Sullivan, how about an apology to Sarah Palin?
Why Sullivan is still read and why he still writes for the London Times (if he still does) is a mystery to me.
Note Sullivan's correction and apology at the end of Charles article.
Now, Sullivan, how about an apology to Sarah Palin?
Labels: Krauthammer
