Kurtz: "Why has Glenn Beck ... not revisited" CRU emails controversy following scientist's exoneration?
July 11, 2010 2:17 pm ET
From the July 11 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
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.
Now I don't feel so well, something backed-up in my gullet ;<
He's a propagandist. That which favors the point of view he advocates he will express, regardless of inaccuracy.
That which does not fit in with ideological viewpoint he will not broadcast, regardless of its accuracy.
What troubles me about this thread is that the cowardice of the mainstream press to go back and admit they made a mistake. It is an international embarrassment of this country that we have a problem accepting what is reality for many countries around the world. We are nearly scientifically illiterate, they have a chance to correct it, but they fear embarrassing themselves professionally by coming clean in front of a sceptical American audience.
That's pretty clearly revealed in what Waxman had to say when she served up the " . . .that's just extremely complicated for readers journalists to comprehend," line. Really? Other than the fact that those who ran with the idea that this somehow provided evidence of a "hoax" have been proven wrong, what has changed? We've been seeing "Climategate" headlines for some time and those stories were ran presumably with the assumption that the readers would comprehend. How would a headline saying, "Climategate Charges Shown To Be Wrong" become something readers and viewers can't understand?
But, of course, we all know it would just kill Fox and CNN to have to admit that MSNBC covered this issue with greater accuracy than they did, right?
I think Americans in general have trouble admitting they're wrong.
WE DO NOT!
(Sarcasm)
Its a trick question, I just know it!
I think a better question for old Howie here, is what on earth is going on inside your mind, to actually ask a question like that. Do you seriously think Beck is a journalist? He's a rodeo clown by his own admission. Are you now covering he rodeo circuit?
Any news remotely bad for liberals = Completely true, immediately.
Anything news remotely good for liberals = Liberal conspiracy.
Give him time. He's working on his scheme. He has to figure out a way to "spin" the scientists' exoneration. He'll probably say that it involves a conspiracy between the Obama and Cameron Administrations. It's the next logical step, if you think about it. We'll get another exposure to the thugocracy and the corrupt Chicago machine.
Cuga, I've already seen a poster, I believe at this site, mentioning that the exoneration was from within the same institution as an argument for the Denier Cult.
Since they rarely seem to come up with their own original thoughts, I'm going to assume that this is the first angle of attack.
Of course, the whole "climategate" scam was debunked to the satisfaction of any sane human within days of its inception, and the Deniers were all-in with promoting the hoax, I really doubt if the official debunking is going to get Beck or any of the wingnuts to see the error of their ways.
They get a lot invested emotionally in their world view, and if they start seeing the problems with one part of it, they may start questioning everything that doesn't make sense. And that's not a good thing for right wingers to be doing, if they want to remain right wingers..
Be patient, Howie -- Glenda's just getting a new blackboard . . .
I (flounder_az) pointed out that "people" should probably start by apologizing to the climate scientists that got smeared over and over on the news pages for the last year.
I know that Kurtz didn't demand his buddy George Will fess up, but for Kurtz, even demanding accountability from the low hanging fruit is a pretty big step.
Have a truly open review of the data by someone other than those vested in a particular outcome. Gee, if Penn State faculty somehow found errors, who loses prestige and their claim to a nobel prize???
If all of the arable land on earth were to become arid, nations were fighting over scarce food, water and other resources, oceans were covering the southern and eastern states, and pictures of the devastation were pasted on the front pages of the world's largest newspapers as a result of climate change and global warming, you'd still be in denial and carrying water for your betters.
You're being played by corporatists to work against your own best interests, and you don't even know it.
Thanks for confirming what I posted down thread.
Even if one would be believe your scenario, how would the power of man's intellect not enable us to adapt. You assume that we have the power to destroy the environment, why not that we would have the wherewithal to once again change, alter our lifestyle or the environment of earth?
By saying that our use of fossil fuel will forever create the kind of devastation always ascribes too much power into man's ability to overwhelm what God created for us. I remember the doomsayers talking about overpopulation, starvation, ozone holes and complete use of all fossil fuels by 1990. But we found more sources of oil, we grow more food and the ozone hole is lessening.
The earth heals and changes itself. It has for billions of years of climate changes, ice ages, extinctions and dramatic changes in the environment.
The Ozone hole is closing because we stopped using the aerosole responsible for opening the hole in the first place but its far from closed. its takes decades for the gap to close to safe levels.
We have power to change the earth and now we have reached the point of no return based on what scientists say. And there is still starvation and the earth is overpopulating. none of the problems you say were fixed have in no way been close to being "fixed".
The earth is changing because we are altering its chemistry and we won't stop because we don't like the idea of having to change anything. The biggest complaint form the anti-global warming crwod is pretty much that trying to prevent stop it from getting worse requires effort (cutting emissions, changing fuels, using less private vehicles, investing money) and people are lazy.
If we wanted to destroy all the ozone in the atmosphere could we do it? We could not. Do you know why? We would have to build the largest space fire truck in the history of the world. Find a way to get it to the sun without melting. Have enough water in it to put the sun out. And only then could we destroy the ozone layer. And if we did that wee would destroy everything else at the same time.. the environmental movement is the new home of the socialist Communist movement of the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.
4/4/95
[Cosmologist, Planetary Scientist, Climate Scientist, Physicist, Firefighter]
But there was no coverup. The data is widely open to anyone, the same as data in any peer reviewed science. Opposing viewpoints in science are welcome in this field, as in any, and, for example, opposing viewpoints were included in the IPCC report, as you should know if you really wanted to understand the issue. Your quote about "null hypothesis" is just a bunch of nonsense dressed up to impress.
Secondly, as long as we are speculating - defending a fraud would be much more risky to the credibility of a University. A university would have to think it is obvious that a real fraud would ultimately be found out. In the end, the university has more at stake with its credibility than anything gained by a Nobel prize or any short term accolades.
There is no reason to take this clown's opinion as having the value of a spit in the ocean.
First the article linked pointed out that internal reviews always leave the opposition wondering? Don't you still believe that Bush stole the 2000 election, deliberately lied about WMD, that Cheney authorized the outing of val plame? Why? Because those looking in detail had vested interests in those outcomes and would obviously strive to cover up the details.
Authenticating science demands the effort to prove your theory false and moving to nullify that by the data collected. This work and the review does just the opposite. Rather than include differing perspectives on the science or still not allow outsiders to look at the data makes the inquiry less vigorous. I believe the reviewers looked at the loss of prestige, grant money and political power as more important than thorough review.
There have now been five investigations into those stolen emails. They have all cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. You may whine about cover-ups all you wish, but you should also consider the reality that they don't actually show any evidence of wrongdoing. There was NO manipulation of data. There was NO concealment. There was NO subversion of the scientific process.
Sometimes a person just has to accept that reality doesn't match what he wants to be true.
As for your other gobbledegook, opposing scientists have had their say and their positions have been published. They have actually been given more prominence than their numbers in the climatological community warrants, given that 97% of active climatologists accept the reality that humans are influencing global climate change. Those "differing perspectives" have had prominence beyond the evidence supporting them.
The data has been and remains available for review and confirmation. It's never been hidden and no original data has been destroyed. You're imagining malfeasance that isn't in evidence. You've either been conned by conservatives or you're attempting to perpetuate the con. In either case, you're not stating facts.
You obviously don't understand how science works or don't want to understand. The work is completely open to outsiders as it is in all sciences, and other scientists regularly check it quite rigorously. Your claim about loss of prestige etc. just amounts to a generic fallacy, and in any case is simply untrue. Publishing a paper showing that AGW is real will hardly win you any fame, no more than one backing up the theory of gravity or evolution. On the other hand, a paper that really showed a different perspective on AGW would give a scientist much more prestige.
Wow. Your link actually goes to an article about how Obama will not investigate Cheney. How misleading can you possibly be? Your quote does not come from the timesonline at all!
And of course, Dr. Mann is not the least bit wrong, as multiple reports now show.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
The current "press corps" to a person, is lazy, ignorant, shallow, celebrity-seeking, and unemployable in any occupation that doesn't reward those characteristics.
If there is anything that this website proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that the mainstream media (not just the lunatic rightwingers featured prominently here, who play the mainstream like a fiddle) should NOT matter. Anybody who listens long to the drivel that they peddle will find his or her head shrinking.
They're going down, I think, under the new media, and for me it can't be soon enough.
But really... isn't the answer self-evident?
are you completely unaware that upon the onset of the industrial revolution, ie 19th century onwords, leading scientists at the time were already concerned at the amount of co2 entering the atmosphere. sure, co2 is a naturally occuring substance, in fact trees and plants need it live (that doesnt mean that a planet full of oxygen would be a good thing). however, even in the 19th century the scientific community understood that it had a power to heat things up just by being there. taking a page from the book of the past, everything in moderation. 24 billion tons of co2 per year is not moderation