Noted climate scientist Ingraham says emails indicate "shocking scientific fraud," global warming a "lie"
December 01, 2009 8:29 am ET
From the December 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Mr. News
Two women who would do better on an old Comedy show called "Maude"
Laura & Gretchen, "Two Peas in a Pod"
Two ladies that never miss an Opportunity to give a Hatters Nod.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Thinking is considered a "4 letter word" at Fox & Friends where they invented a new phrase known as Mental Shrinking.
If Laura would just read one paper by Albert Einstein she would understand the process of informed Thought.
The Southern Polar Ice Caps are Shrinking Laura, even a Nasty person like you should be consumed with Fraught?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Your rhymes are compelling,
but less so your spelling.
It should be spelled "gall,"
not like Asterix the Gaul,
nor Charles de Gaulle.
Okay, I think I'll stick to prose,
and leave the rhymes to the pros. :)
But that does not Negate that "The Poet" is the best at the MMFA Clerihew Trade.
Two posters Christopher Howard & MickD had the "Gall" to question a Spitters Credibility?
Somtimes i forget the Petty Jealousies & easily hurt feelings that expose some Posters Fragility.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH HOMOPHONES
*head explodes*
Just askin'.
Well, we don't have to imagine, Ms. Ingraham. Once upon a time, there was a diplomat named Joe Wilson. He wrote a series of op-eds questioning the factual basis of the war in Iraq. He showed that President Bush lied about the intelligence, specifically that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons. And what happened as a result of this dissent? Well, the administration painted a bulls-eye on the back of his wife by outing her as a CIA operative. So, no need to imagine.
The scientists are not pretending the e-mails didn't happen, though they have been explaining what the e-mails actually said, something you have just failed to do. You can call it the 'church of global warming' all you want. Some people see through your sound bite level 'analysis' and understand it for what it is: the yammering of the woefully uneducated. This does, of course, make you a perfect guest commentator on FOX Propaganda, though.
Bear in mind also that the scientists in question here do not work for the Obama administration, or indeed the U.S. at all. Also, this was not criticism in the sense of Ms. Ingraham or anyone else on that benighted network offering anything in the way of intelligent critique. They merely yell "Oh! The scandal!" over and over in the vain hope one will appear.
As for criticism of the Obama administration, I have some of my own. What I usually object to, and ACORN/Halliburton is a prime example of this dichotomy, is the hypocrisy that the conservative MSM labors under. They strain at gnats in the Obama administration (ACORN) when in the past they happily swallowed whole camels (Halliburton) in the service of Mr. Bush.
I welcome actual criticism, of this or any administration as I have little use for authority per se. I see precious little genuine criticism, however, especially from FOX, which is most often engaged in propaganda instead. Death panels, as just one example of this foolishness. Anything Glenn Beck says as another. No substantive policy debate, just lies, smears, and attempts to manufacture scandal.
Melting glaciers and ice caps, thermal images, temperature readings, scientific studies and consensus: We need lots more evidence! The jury's still out!!
An email: Global warming is a fraud! What more proof do we need!
"Absolute orthodoxy, no matter what facts emerge."
Your words, Ingram, not mine.
Now who's practicing "absolute orthodoxy, no matter what facts emerge?"
Here are the facts from some wicked, evil con-artists, called scientists:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=13366#1
Hmmmm... your use of the single form of the word "scientist" is telling.
It's easier to understand a conspiracy involving only one scientist, but I believe there are a few more that just one.
The more people involved, the more difficult it is to make this so-called conspiracy work.
To make the deniers conspiracy work, some nefarious cabal would have to convince ALL these educated people involved at NOAA, NASA, Florida State, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, all the organizations noted at USCUSA, etc. to be a part of some grand big lie.
And there has to be some motivation do be a part of it - which is? Oh, and this has to apply only to anyone associated with studying climate change.
And this conspiracy cannot apply to any other branch of science. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any of the technological advances we enjoy today.
Occam's razor seems to be the only solution here - the simplest explanation is there is overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change, and the world's scientists are in consensus about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
No, I think I'll stick with the simple explanation. Not some half-baked, convoluted, bizarre notion of an ill-defined conspiracy.
Deniers say they want to review the data. Which data is that? Just the data that supports their own narrow-minded, pre-conceived notions? You just reject anything that doesn't line up with your conclusions anyway.
I'll stick with the scientific experts and leave the ignorant rantings to the idiots who think everyone should spoon-feed them proofs. As if they'd understand the data in the first place!
Next time you go to your Dr., ask him or her to prove to you that they know what they are talking about by requesting to see all their data to prove to you that you should continue seeing them, and not some witchdoctor.
FYI
In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."
She is a Poster Child for the Secular Government Movement.
Climatologists got data about worldwide temperatures from a variety of sources. The original sources are thousands of individual weather monitoring stations around the world. Some stations submitted data that had issues - sometimes from typos, sometimes other issues that needed to be fixed. They made those fixes, and kept that repaired data. They didn't keep the flawed data.
People are crying about the flawed data not having been kept.
Anyone who wants to can go back to the original sources and get that same flawed data if they want to. The original data is still there at the recording stations that measured the weather data in the first place! That data wasn't destroyed. It wasn't like the climatologists were performing experiments and they destroyed the data from those experiments.
Par for the course.