Quick Fact: Fox Nation falsely characterized reportedly stolen CRU emails as "Global Warming's Waterloo"
Under the headline "Global Warming's Waterloo?," The Fox Nation linked to a November 23 Gateway Pundit post asserting that "Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] will call for an investigation into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information from the public to further their cause." But Gateway Pundit's claim that the emails -- which were reportedly stolen by a hacker -- "showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information," and consequently Fox Nation's headline suggesting that these emails represent a "Waterloo" for climate change, are false; in fact, numerous climate change experts have explained that such a characterization is predicated on reading the emails out of context and distorting their scientific language.
From The Fox Nation accessed November 23:
From the November 23 Gateway Pundit post to which the Fox Nation headline links, the text of which was also provided in part by Fox Nation:
Senator James Inhofe will call for an investigation into the Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails that showed that global warming scientists were deliberately mainpulating [sic] and hiding information from the public to further their cause.
Fact: Climate experts agree with NASA scientist on emails: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way"
In using the reportedly stolen emails, critics have misrepresented numerous passages to advance the dubious claim that the emails undermine the evidence of anthropogenic global warming. In fact, Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," adding, "It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Moreover, RealClimate.org's staff has refuted the distortion of an email that has been repeatedly cited by critics to claim that the emails undermine global warming science, noting that the terms "trick" and "hide the decline" that appeared in a 1999 email represent an "example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." RealClimate.org explained that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all," and noted that "hiding the decline" refers to a method that is "completely appropriate."
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. --
Another quote from the article you cited...
"But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."
Darn rightwingers who just won't be honest. Cropping quotes or parts of an article that don't represent the full picture is really offensive!
Being the type of person that likes to examine my beliefs from many sides-not just one (or two), I found scientific evidence contrary to the Al Gore Gaia Religion aka man-made Global warming.
The prophet of CO2 demonization (Gore, who's carbon footprint is 100 times most American's) says Carbon trading and taxes on exhalation is the solution.
I always wondered why he was still okay with military and other government pollution that would remain exempt from such penalties. A true Eco-warrior would hold all pollution as something that needed reversing or avoiding whenever possible.
The glaring reason that these bovine fart-taxing freaks don't care about sea creatures suffering from military sonar damage and other such crimes is the fact that they are only feigning environmentalism so they can get rich off of it.
Many Liberals think they are smart but like Al Gore, they only get flustered or resort to name-calling when their reality is challenged by conflicting data. This is why we hear the talk questioning the source of the emails or ignoring the discussion where people with scientific backgrounds examine the emails.
This tactic is used by both the extreme Right as well as Left to avoid admitting that there may be a middle point in the discussion that is closer to reality and to real science.
Only a person beahving like a jerk unable to debate the facts would behave that way. And calling you a jerk isn't name calling - it's based upon your behavior that you've exhibited here, including the screen name you chose and the fact that you decried namecalling while your post was full of namecalling!!!
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have with Keith re AR4? ["AR4" is common shorthand for the U.N. IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, which was released in 2007.] Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
A couple points:
1. The recipient of this email (Michael Mann) has told a reporter he did not delete any emails as a result of Phil's "suggestion", which makes me think the email is real.
2. The subject of the alleged email is FOI/IPCC
3. The email follows an FOI request for data on AR4.
4. "Delete" has the same meaning "in science" as it does to you and me.
This is likely at least one of the emails George Monbiot is referring to as damaging. Clearly, there is no global warming conspiracy, and nobody seriously thinks that these emails are evidence of this. But they are evidence of objectionable scientific practices (by these scientists alone), which need to be investigated if these same scientists are going to be advising the IPCC on major global policy issues.
If they don't have anything to hide (though the emails seem to suggest they do), then there is nothing to fear and everything to gain from clearing their names.
There isn't even a hint of a desire to conceal, manipulate or spin data. There's nothing there.
The Wall Street Journal has put together a collection of the emails it considers most damning. I read through all of them and what I came away with was an impression of scientists who are dedicated and determined to GET IT RIGHT. I didn't get the impression of people trying to hide anything. These are supposed to be the worst of the emails and they leave me impressed with the scientists.
You levy common canards at Al Gore, and mocking references to ‘eco-warriors’ and, uh, ‘fart-taxing freaks’ (don’t explain; seriously, I’d rather not know) but offer no evidence to support your suppositions which makes them thusly unfounded unless you wish to offer proof otherwise. It is basic statistics to add or subtract groups of data to help determine a pattern, or un-determine one for that matter, and the handful of individuals were rightly inflamed at the persistent inquisition of folks clearly driven by a rather more unscientific agenda. I imagine someone, somewhere, makes a tidy fortune engineering such expositive moments out of whole cloth. I suspect I could guess their employer as well, at least within minimal degrees of separation. The banshee screaming from the usual suspects only further borders the case. But of course this will further cloud matters, causing more delay, more obfuscation, which will continue unabated until seawaters really do start lapping against some downtown high rises. It is human nature, really. I mean, dude, those ships are going to go right over the edge, if the sea dragon doesn’t get them first.
P.S. As always "go green just in case".