Newspaper retracts "climategate" story, months too late

[techs]

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/25/climategate_retraction/index.html

The Times of London published utterly untrue stories about the "climategate" emails; now they regret the error

Remember "climategate"? Someone hacked and distributed emails from climate scientists from the University of East Anglia. (It was kind of like Weigelgate except the entire Earth is going to die in a fire.) Some of the scientists used words like 'trick" and "hide." Instant scandal: Global warming is made up! A British newspaper has finally gotten around to correcting the record.

It was obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the stolen "climategate" emails that they didn't actually contain anything particularly scandalous, and they certainly didn't contain anything at all that remotely called into the question the legitimacy of years of science demonstrating the effect of human activity on climate change.



Just an FYI.


Moved from OT

ATOT Moderator ElFenix

 

[Nebor]

It wasn't scandalous because we all already knew global warming was made up.

 

[nick1985]

 

[Hacp]

Grafting data isn't scandalous?

 

[dammitgibs]

 

[First]

Smart people knew and still do know that MMGW is real. No real surprise here.

 

[Patranus]

Smart people knew and still do know that MMGW is real. No real surprise here.

Have any proof to backup that claim?
(I won't hold my breath)

 

[dammitgibs]

Smart people knew and still do know that MMGW is real. No real surprise here.

 

[Argo]

Have any proof to backup that claim?
(I won't hold my breath)

He said "smart people know" - what more proof do you need?

 

[Double Trouble]

The lefty nuts (for example, salon) just don't seem to be getting it. This should be a scientific debate/discussion as far as what can be done etc, but it's become a political one. And the more the leftist nutjobs push the issue, the more normal/average non-political folks (ie, the general public) starts resisting the effort as political ploys, and the more the general public starts resisting efforts that might indeed by beneficial/needed. They're making things worse for themselves.

 

[sandorski]

Too bad the Idiocy spread by it doesn't get retracted too.

 

[Moonbeam]

Have any proof to backup that claim?
(I won't hold my breath)

One can prove nothing to an idiot.

 

[First]

Have any proof to backup that claim?
(I won't hold my breath)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=man+made+global+warming

 

[dammitgibs]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=man+made+global+warming

Lol the first result is "CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'"

Nice.

 

[monovillage]

Read these other views of the Sunday Times backtrack.... other newspapers didn't retract.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/27/more-amazonian-knockabout.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/.../7856474/Amazongate-the-missing-evidence.html

 

[monovillage]

Read these other views of the Sunday Times backtrack.... other newspapers didn't retract.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/27/more-amazonian-knockabout.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/.../7856474/Amazongate-the-missing-evidence.html

and BTW it's the Sunday Times, not the Times, the OP has it wrong. They are not the same newspaper.

 

[Atreus21]

Lol the first result is "CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'"

Nice.

Actually, when I did it I got "The 'Man-Made Global Warming' Hoax."

Can I get another "lmgtfy"?

 

[Jaskalas]

The Sunday Times of London, which led the media pack in charging that IPCC reports were full of egregious (and probably intentional) errors, retracted its central claim—namely, that the IPCC statement that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest could be vulnerable to climate change was “unsubstantiated.” The Times also admitted that it had totally twisted the remarks of one forest expert to make it sound as if he agreed that the IPCC had screwed up, when he said no such thing.

So, for you, climategate boiled down to the Amazonian rainforest report being called “unsubstantiated" in a newspaper. Now they retract that claim. Phew, glad that's over with!

Moron.

 

[NoWhereM]

A thread about an article about an article about an article. You know if you actually post links to actual stories, not stories about stories about stories, you might have a thread that isn't just somebody's opionion about the opinion of somebody else who read a story.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I like this one as well :

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

Now, if the Amazon were so sensitive, if it “could react drastically” to even a “slight reduction” in rainfall, certainly such a large reduction would make a big difference … but that didn’t happen. There was no “flip” to savannah mentioned in the paper.

Third, Dr. Lewis seems to want us to think that some fraction of the rainforest becoming savannah is supportive of the IPCC claim that:

… the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state …

That’s just misdirection. Dr. Lewis does not provide any evidence in support of the alarmist claim that the South American climate is in danger of a rapid change to some other steady state. Which is no surprise to me, since I know of no historical evidence of such a rapid large-scale change in the tropical climate to a much dryer state.

And finally, even Dr. Lewis recognizes that there is no scientific certainty about this question, saying:

This is not to say this there isn’t much uncertaintly as to exactly how vulnerable how much of the Amazon is to moving to a savanna system.

Well … yeah. Given that uncertainly, his claim that the IPCC statement is “basically correct” is unsupportable. “Much uncertainty” means that we cannot make scary statements like the IPCC has done, and we certainly can’t say that they are “basically correct”. All we can say is that they are uncertain.

Now again i like to make clear that i am against man made pollution since humanity has all the technology it needs to make closed circle systems. Avoiding pollution of the earth,the rivers, the sea and the sky. And life in and around those sources of life. And decreasing the chance of creating an environment where lifeforms that are more hostile to humanity and current present animals will increase in numbers up to a point these lifeforms can start to do serious damage.

But i do not believe in the man made global warming scheme as is presented often. That is just a load of crap by scientist who completely ignore everything that will change the result of their precious papers and changing the effect of CO2 to a smaller extent. Examples are cherry picking the biology on the planet and the effects of the sun activity and cosmic rays as well as galactic position which has a large effect on the amount of cosmic ray particles that will enter our solar system and even enter the earths atmosphere.

 

[drebo]

One can prove nothing to an idiot.

That must be why lefties still think socialism can work.

 

[William Gaatjes]

That must be why lefties still think socialism can work.

Actually it can work.
The path can be found in the middle, a hybrid between free market and government control. The best of both worlds but none of the flaws of both because when properly executed, will counter each other negative effects. You definitely do not want corporatism without government control where the government control is dictated by the people by use of a multi political party (meaning more then 2) choice for the people. And as such decreasing the chance of failure of democracy where only the appearance of democracy is presented but all parties are financially supported by the same wealthy individuals over and over again. To make sure their interests are protected by those people who they have supported for the election. And because of alternation between parties , the public still thinks they have something to say.


http://www.answers.com/topic/corporatism


About corporatism as is currently in the USA and predicted (because it was in use already by some countries in Europe around and before the time of WW2) :

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[60][61][62]

From the same message:
The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them.


Critics of the notion of the confluence of corporate power and de facto fascism included President Dwight D. Eisenhower[63], who nevertheless brought attention to the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry"[64] in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation, and stressed "the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage."[64]

 

[dammitgibs]

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can get my arms around the Techs contention of, "The Times of London published utterly untrue stories about the "climategate" emails; now they regret the error"

Yah horray, now that the times of London has belatedly conceded one error, we can safely conclude all this global warming bullshit is just bullshit??????????????????????

Pardon silly me, if this is just the second or third millionth piece of false bad pieces of information on the global climate issue published in Newspapers I am whooppee do underwhelmed. Or dare we hope, after the fourth millionth piece of distorted information, published in newspapers by biased oil companies or biased global warming advocates, that the same newspaper will finally be the entity that answers all the scientific debate questions regarding all global warming issues???????????????

Somehow I place my faith in non biased real scientists, and admit our scientific understanding is far short of what we need. Meanwhile, we must go with the preponderances of the evidence, that says Global warming is quite real and we are playing Russian roulette with our climate.

Somehow I do not want to read, in the newspapers, that the gulf stream is gostoppen, and another drop of rain will not fall in the USA while Europe freezes.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Not that old crone again...

She turns my pubic hair into artificial turf.

She makes heterosexual men French kiss other men on the mouth.

She makes preachers do the dance of joy while chanting out loud : "Thank you LORD for enforcing celibacy".

With here you cannot drink enough, she will still be scary after a hundred beers.

Who is she anyway ?
I just was dying to write those lines .
Or should i have picked the bat from Alaska ?