Well, let me help the wingnut teabagger freaks who troll around this site and say what they're going to say (it'll save them the trouble of posting here so they'll have more time to shout their hatred at gay people and those who don't vote republican): The AP is now officially part of the liberal elitist media. There, I did your work for you, wingnuts. Now you'll be able to get back to your other ignorant and hateful activities. Don't bother to thank me.

Well I must say. The Deniers are a slick lot. They've had me questioning the global warming argument myself sometimes. But then I remember the North-West passage is open for the first time in human history and I'm back from la-la land again.

But my bigger concern is how the situation is being hijacked at the "elite" business level where we have no democratic representation. Financial securitization of pollution as a means to control it through capitalism may be an intuitive way to enforce laws by channeling free-market incentives but I would much prefer the older, simpler and less obscure method of tax levies.

Already I hear Goldman Sachs will soon be trading in carbon cap futures and once again it appears the middle-men of commerce will be digging their long fingers into the pot of the real economy ripping out chunks of resources expressed as dollars to pile into their virtual pots of cash. They need to do this, of course, because they create nothing of value themselves despite the diligent rhetoric crafted by their teams of PR reps and lawyers. The need to endlessly plunder the effort of others is their only source of income and nothing, not even our global future, is more sacred than that next bonus.

Hidflect said:

But my bigger concern is how the situation is being hijacked at the "elite" business level where we have no democratic representation. Financial securitization of pollution as a means to control it through capitalism may be an intuitive way to enforce laws by channeling free-market incentives but I would much prefer the older, simpler and less obscure method of tax levies.

Your concerns are certainly meritorious (and it's appreciated that they don't come couched in the wingnut denialist rhetoric).

I'm not particularly in support of the current House/Senate legislation for cap and trade here, but the fact is a tax would be used as a bludgeon against Dems, and is simply not political feasible, as I see it. (Look how they're even calling Cap and Trade a tax when it isn't!)

Furthermore, a tax would put the onus directly on tax-payers as companies simply passed on whatever taxes were levied onto their customers. Whereas a competitive market-based cap and trade system (if appropriately implemented, of course) would offer the added benefits of forcing the polluters themselves to curb emissions, or else be bested by those companies who do. So there is a market-based, conservative incentive in place with Cap and Trade --- which has shown itself to work very well in the past, btw, as we highlighted in our most recent Green News Report.

Again, not necessarily arguing that cap and trade is the only way to go, and certainly not arguing in favor of the current Congressional legislation. Just trying to offer a slightly larger picture of the issues, beyond the very valid ones you present in your comment above.

Hidflect:
Built for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to serve as a supply ship for isolated, far-flung Arctic RCMP detachments, St. Roch was also designed to serve when frozen-in for the winter as a floating detachment with its constables mounting dog sled patrols from the ship. Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.

http://hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm

Some of the pitfalls of cap 'n trade and other emissions /agreements/legislation...never underestimate the corporate deceivers....

Leaders of the Rich World Are Enacting a Giant Fraud

I dunno, man... if the AP is reporting it... that would give me pause....

I said from the beginning: all you had to do was see who was saying Global Warming was a hoax and not even look at the emails:

- Rush Limbaugh
- Sean Hannity
- The Republicans
- former Bush administration officials
- Exxon-Mobil
- Saudi Oil Shieks

They all want us to stay on Big Oil, can you figure that one out?

- FOX "news"

Big Oil is in their "death throes", and pulled out all the stops with all their media before the climate change summit. The timing of the hacked emails that were years old came right before the climate summit. What a coincidence. Everything added up to the real hoax being the shills claiming the hoax. Rush Limbaugh will be in a death throe all next week still pitching something that no one believes. Actually, the tide seems to be turning on the propagandists. Back in time a little, before all these propagandists were hammered upon by independent media, they got away with things like this. If the Monica Lewinsky thing happened now, it wouldn't have worked to the extent it did back then. We're all wise to it now.

And you know what? There will be something after this. Just in recent memory, it went from "Pallin' with terrorists", Joe the Plumber, Obama birth certificate, ACORN, then Global Warming hoax. They're all lined up one after another, is anyone noticing this? We just have to point out the next one when it happens. One after another after another, there's a schedule somewhere, believe me! Each one comes out of left field, unexpected. But when you expect something, it's easy to identify it when it happens.

What will the next one be? The Global Warming summit is coming to an end, what's on the schedule this coming week for the new rightwing fabrication? Breitbart did Oscar the Grouch, too, but that was a minor one. They have to throw in puppet related ones once in a while, like the Purple Teletubby. Maybe they'll get the Evangelicals to picket a movie or something, instead of picketing the wars.

Disclaimer: I do not own stock, invest, or support big industry of any sort.
My house of 2 people own 4 bikes and 1 car...
I do support non partisan fact searching, and truth seeking.
These are excerpts from the same article in order to add a balance:

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data

and

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts.. even as they told the world they were certain about climate change.

even worse:

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel

and

"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.

and

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

No, politicized science is not so pretty at all.
I don't know why but I am reminded of 2007 when Al Gore was found to be using 200% more energy per year in his 20 room mansion than others in the area. He said he was in the process of changing to compact light bulbs...
That was years after his fear inducing movie.
Does he have jet lag?

To Big Dan: I agree that Big Oil is in its death bed, but I think it is the Green movement that will keep the Fat Cats Pockets Fat.
Big Oil was manipulated and monopolized, eventually we stopped supporting ourselves with our own resources and foreign policy was born, now we have the war on terror...
All of this is designed to keep the machine going.

Brian R-comment #10

Balance is good. So is being a stickler for detail. But whatever caveats one might squeeze about the reality of climate change from the imperfect behavior of a few scientists seem terribly mild compared to the claims of the climate change deniers that the emails provide more dramatic proof that climate change ain't happening. I'm not sure exactly where you come down on this but I'm extremely wary of false equivalences here. The melting icecaps and glaciers around the world are infinitely more meaningful than this red herring.

And I don't know the specifics of Al Gore's home energy use but whether he's being a perfect example in his own life or not says nothing about the realities depicted so clearly in his film.

Only one way to prove no one wants to stop the flow of big cash to big oil and utilities is to look up the Chrysler Natrium if you happen to have a search engine.

Citing the AP and factcheck as authorities is ludicrous. Words are not the language of science. Mathematics is the language of science. Journalists posess very little in the way of quantitative analytical skills.

At least acknowledge that the emails cast doubt and uncertainty on the science at CRU. There can be no doubt about the fact that CRU has violated data retention and methodology sharing ethics that have been codified tenets of academic research for decades. Whether this invalidates the CRU results is still an open question.

One should wait until quantitative analysis of the data, methods, and algorithms are performed --- under the scientific ethics of full disclosure, data sharing and transparency. At that point we can draw conclusions about what the efforts at CRU prove or disprove

Jallen, so "words" are not the language of science. Aren't the emails "words" and not science? Yet you say those "words" cast doubt. You contradicted yourself.

This is for Jallen @ #13:

AP themselves did not do any review. They contracted industry experts to do this review. From the Article:

seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

Much quantitative analysis of the data, methodology and algorithms has already been performed. And this analysis hhas universally acknowledged that The ice IS melting and that there is significant evidence suggesting that human behavior over the past century plus has contributed significantly.

You've chosen to question this finding because, for some reason, the astroturf funded and published skepticism has convinced a large enough percentage of (generally christian conservative) people that 98% of the worlds climatologists are somehow conspiring to weaken the United Sates.

These hacked emails are being touted as evidence of just such a conspiracy.

What the staff hired by the Associated press has found, however, is the emails show no such thing. What they do show is human frailty, and some difficulty, especially early on, in undertsanding their own data.

But the premise of some world wide conspiracy of scientists working to take down the United States, even on it's surface, is ludicrous.

The REAL conspiracy, however, begins to take shape once you dig beneath the surface of the roots of Global Warming skepticism by following the money.

One must ask why is there an association or correlation between a conservative religious agenda and climate change denial? What conservative principle mandates opposition to environmentalism?
There seems to be an accommodation between big business and religion to the effect that corporate interests will push or espouse theocracy (which costs nothing) in exchange for churches defending the interests of "the military industrial complex". Sweet deal, but I think not made in heaven.

It's quite probable that the scientists "questionable" actions were based on the notion that it is important for the planet that action be taken and soon. In a normal scientific inquiry there is little concern for urgency.
I believe their desire to limit public attention for opposition was an expression of fear that giving any ammunition to conservatives would prove harmful in a very real sense. Furthermore, there was a suspicion (at least) that opposition was motivated more by politics than science.

Jallen at 13 -

So, you are saying we should take personal comments in emails and evaluate those comments in order to decide whether global warming is real or not?

Also, you should read what you have posted. It makes no sense at all. Indeed, mathematics is the language of science. That is why, when translated into a very non-science language like English, pinheads like "lush", amongst others, feel free to misinterpret and fantasize as much as they do.

To anyone with the faintest understanding of mathematics, the message is clear that global warming is, indeed, active and the prime driver is human activity. The fact that you think there is some sort of conspiracy simply because the pieces are not in the places you think they ought to be is a shame and reflects on your lack of intelligence more than anything else. and me just pointing out that the scientific process, including peer review, is a vital part of research and keeping out political input (opinion) is a prime foundation does not make me an "elite".

[Ed Note: Final graf removed. IntelVet, please see our Rules for Commenting at BRAD BLOG. Personal attacks on other commenters (non-public figures) are not allowed. Please do not do that. Thanks - BF]

Here's the best summary of Climagate I've seen so far in MSM:

http://www.dailymail.co....admit-DID-send-them.html

Fred S @ 17 said:

I believe their desire to limit public attention for opposition was an expression of fear that giving any ammunition to conservatives would prove harmful in a very real sense.

Just for the record, those opposed to action on climate change are not "conservatives". They are rightwingers, corporatists, tea baggers, denialists, but not conservatives. That label continues to be used as a ruse to convince the public they have "conservative" values when they decidedly do not. They have "corporatist" values, which are decidedly NOT conservative, particularly in re: taking action on a climate in trouble.

Everyone seems to be on one side of the gate or the other, throwing sticks and stones at each other.

When glaicers grow will we freak out just the same?

Will we tax people to warm up the earth?

Maybe we are trying to keep it at a cool 70 degrees, like California most of the year?

Thats it! A regulated environment, that can not control, itself because we dont allow it. A changing climate will not be had! We can not stand for it, its cold, its hot, yadayadaya.

Im tired of there being different ages and climates, in fact, why do we have seasons?
Can't we get some legislation for that soon?

Hey- it can't rain at the olympics, it will displace the event, so keep the clouds from forming...

Im sorry, I just had to let that out...

Really, if you want to save the world stop buying green, stop buying red, stop buying white.
Stop buying it in general, that includes the hype too.

Steve Heller's comment #1 Re the liberal media. Of course now we have a predictably rapid response in right wing media but it wasn't too many years ago that 'corporatists' used to complain that all the media was liberal. To me it was the obvious result of the fact that journalists are out there figuring out the truth behind what is going on and once knowing they would naturally become "liberals". Set free of the BS, liberated.

Big Dan's comment #7: Alex Jones is another who is calling global warming a fraud. I think he is doing a lot of damage on the left.
also Big Dan #9: Big Oil is not in its death throes, society as we know it is in its death throes. Big Oil will always be Huge. There is a question as to whether we are past the moment of Peak Oil but we know it is close. Unless we figure out other means of heating and lighting our homes Big Coal is the one to worry about as we quickly progress beyond the peak in oil. but, oil will never lose its bigness, there is simply nothing that can take its place. The less of it there is the more valuable it will become.

Another topic, is that if it seems inevitable that the disinformation on Global Warming isn't effective, which seems to be the case, that doesn't mean these same people won't hedge their bets and try and hijack huge profits from the acceptance of Global Warming. They hedge their bets at all times.

Same thing with health care: if it's inevitable we're going to do health care for all, they'll try and hijack profits from covering everyone with health care. Same thing as the financial crash. They make money every way it goes.

Big Dan @23

see comment/link @5

The link describes your point...

@ BrianR in Comment 21.

To say that human activity does not impact our environment and our weather is to deny our own recorded history.

We stopped the destruction of our own forests in the north east, due to acid rain, by altering our behavior as a nation.

We turned the tide on the shrinking ozone layer by altering our behavior as a planet.

And to cherry pick your data regarding the loss of so many glaciers in order to show a few that are growing shows how deeply misinformed you are.

http://www.google.com/se...2&q=glaciers+growing

I suggest that YOU stop buying the fabricated hype and look at this as any rational capitalist would. As the greatest opportunity in the world today.

Not only does getting off of fossil fuels defang the politically powerful oil companies, it creates hundreds of new industries and millions of new jobs.

And you stand in the way of this effort by spouting ignorant and non-factual rhetoric.

We need these industries because we've shipped so many of our traditional industries overseas.

Ask yourself this, Brian, wouldn't you support a green initiative if it were portrayed as the potential economic boon that it is?

Even if some of the scientists involved in climate change stats were biased and had an agenda, how it possible to think their bias is more than that of people and scientists representing big oil, coal, energy, big businesses who really dislike what man made climate change might make. Its like only scientist concerned about enviroment are capable or likely to twist the truth, big businesses would never do that, they are always pure, others are always the scammers, like govt is always bad, businesses always perfect moral actors. Truth is we should be skeptical on all sides, even when not having a preset agenda, science can get set in orthodoxies that are later shown to be wrong but no way I automacially think climate change scientist less trustworty than deniers.

GEORIP @22

First off; Alex Jones has jumped the shark. He'll call a global call for prayer an illuminati ploy. Alex is an industry now like Big Oil...he has to keep the extreme rhetorical sky is falling crap going like GM needed to keep building SUVs.

also Big Dan #9: Big Oil is not in its death throes, society as we know it is in its death throes. Big Oil will always be Huge.

I bet New England whalers though the same thing in 1800...Whale blubber will always be huge.

BlueHawk: yeah, I agree with the capn trade being a sham.

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

Alex Jones: I agree with a lot of what he says, but I notice there are racist tendencies on his site. He's a conservative and has to appeal to them, as well as sell his coffee mugs. When he was on FOX "news", everyone said he was going to expose 9/11, and he didn't talk about it. I predicted that. That's when I thought he jumped the shark, when he went on FOX "news". Alex Jones says the teabaggers are "patriots" and doesn't ONCE mention astroturfing. But, I do agree with some things he says. I think he's now in profit mode trying to sell Alex Jones T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc...

@BigDan “You contradicted yourself”
I understand how you might make that comment. However, my interest is in the scientific and mathematic components contained within the emails. I hope this clarifies.

@ Dan-In-PA #15 wrote: seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.
Partially correct: From the article ”As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.”

Much less rigorous-sounding than the cherry-picked phrase. Although, I will concede you a point to a degree.

Dan @15: “You've chosen to question this finding because …”

Rather presumptuous. I question the finding solely on academic grounds and my questioning is limited to CRU. I have given little thought to the issue before reviewing the emails. I’ve only gotten involved due to the science and academic issues. I could care less what the politicians do. I will make my way quite well as I have for the past half century. So matters of public policy concern me not. But for some reason, I am intrigued by the scientific and mathematic aspects of the issue.

Dan,please know that I never attribute to conspiracy what is more likely attributed to incompetence.

@IntelVelvet at 18: “To anyone with the faintest understanding of mathematics” and “reflects on your lack of intelligence”

Well. Should I dignify? Let me say that anyone who takes time to discuss this issue is not, in any way, unintelligent – that includes, I suppose, both you and I.

Without comparing CV’s, I was once rather competent in the areas of statistics, linear optimization, and linear regression. I readily admit that my skills have atrophied with the passage of time and disuse.

But that is why I am intrigued by the issues, my friend.

I enjoy the give-and-take, if not the tenor.

May I post what most intrigues me about this issue as I mentioned in my initial past. I’ll place it in a later post...

Referencing my original post #13, which seemed to have sparked some interest, allow me to expand:

From the National Academy of Sciences, Here is the crux of climategate (assuming the reader is familiar with the FOIA and the "lost" source data aspects of the issue):

Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and
Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age

ISBN: 978-0-309-13684-6 National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.nap.edu/html/12615/12615_EXS.pdf

Data Access and Sharing Principle: Research data, methods, and other information integral to publicly reported results should be publicly accessible.

Recommendation 5: All researchers should make research data, methods, and other information integral to their publicly reported results publicly accessible in a timely manner to allow verification of published findings and to enable other researchers to build on published results…

Data Stewardship Principle: Research data should be retained to serve future uses.

Data that may have long-term value should be documented, referenced, and indexed so that others can find and use them accurately and appropriately. Curating data requires documenting, referencing, and indexing the data so that they can be used accurately and appropriately in the future.

Recommendation 9: Researchers should establish data management plans at the beginning of each research project that include appropriate provisions for the stewardship of research data.

The solution to this problem — as with so many others — is honesty.

At the minimum, the CRU utterly failed in the Data Access and Data Stewardship principles. Unforgivable.

While I stated One should wait until quantitative analysis of the data, methods, and algorithms are performed --- under the scientific ethics of full disclosure, data sharing and transparency.

I will be willing to wager the investigations now commencing will find egregious violations by CRU of the two principles cited above.

WAR ON MORON

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZYaKOk-3B0

Jallen: do you think all Americans should be covered by health care and we should reform health care?

Big Dan, that video was hilarious. I might even join them.

Did anyone hear that Bolivia re-elected Evo Morales?

What is it that the Bolivians get that we don't? They go to the streets, risking life and limb to prevent the privatization of their water, and here we are just happy as clams to buy overpriced tap water out of plastic bottles, filling up the environment with unnecessary junk for a product that is proven to be less safe, less regulated, than the stuff we get for practically free - and we pay a premium to do it! Fate's ghostwriter has a sense of humor.

Well Brad, you've made up your mind on the subject of global warming, so nothing will convince you otherwise. That's what I call good journalism. No one ever tried to "hide the decline."

@BigDan #34 - Although your post was unresponsive to my previous, Yes and Yes. But that is not the topic here.

Yeah, Brad, thanks for being such a crappy journalist.

I just got woken up an hour earlier than usual to be informed that school will be 2 hours late due to snow. Further evidence of you having made up your mind, trying to "hide the decline" - it IS CLEARLY trending towards colder and colder weather here...in...um...December...um...probably we're on the cusp of a new Ice Age, even...

Well, anyway, enough with the crappy journalism, OK? I'm going to enjoy 2 more hours of sleep, thanks to your incorrectness and hiding of the real facts.

Who's in charge of collecting the fur and fins when they drop? This is a veritable gold mine! I'm getting my corporate papers drawn up today.

...although, on the species decline front, Evolution is all about adaptation, so a positive end result could be shutting up the Morons (different kind) - right, Big Dan?

I saw this AP story in my local paper over the weekend, and I read the story with the hope that there was an actual scientific refutation of fraud based on a data review. I was dismayed, however, that the story only focused on the text of the emails, not a review of the data. The emails do not have the ability to prove the correctness of the data. All they provide is proof that the opinions and conclusions drawn by the authors on the data cannot be trusted. I submit documents of findings and opinions to state regulatory authorities regarding environmental contamination and investigations on a regular basis, and if I ever used tactics or justification for my opinions similar to what these 'scientists' used, I would lose my credibility and license, and likely cost my company its reputation.
I hope none of you graduated penn state, because if you have, I officially view your degree or credentials with suspicion. Sorry, but true.
This is a mess that the politicians and their hacks can only make worse.
Maybe there will be a real review of the revealed information by scientists; until there is; manmade global warming is dead to me. It is a shame if you think that I am biased by anything other than the facts.

Jallen: I just wanted to see if you were the whole ball of wax: no Global Warming, no health care for all Americans, Obama isn't a citizen, WMD's, for the wars, etc...

Jallen: do you want to stay on Big Oil, regardless of whether there's Global Warming or not? Or even if Global Warming is a hoax, we should get off Big Oil and create our own renewable energy right here in America?

US business interests suspected in ‘fabricated’ climate scandal

http://rawstory.com/2009...ricated-climate-scandal/

JAllen, as you're looking into the science underlying climate change, you might find this story interesting, along with the accompanying demonstration video, from an actual scientist:

Lubchenco gives a demonstration of the science of ocean acidification you may be interested in this resource that effectively addresses/debunks the multitude of skeptical arguments being thrown around out there, at SkepticalScience.com.

Mark @ #36, that's just silly. By that reasoning, journalists should still be questioning whether there are WMDs in Iraq because some people still think so, in the absence of actual verifiable evidence.

As we've said on every thread on this subject: The hacked emails contain nothing that overturns ANY of the evidence from the field data gathered in multiple other earth systems disciplines --- even if you threw out everything that ever came out of the CRU.

If you find any evidence anywhere that shows the oceans aren't acidifying, overall melt rates for glaciers and ice sheets aren't accelerating, global average temperatures are not the hottest in recorded history, species and migrations ranges are not shifting, the hydrological cycles are not shifting, precipitation patterns are not shifting, and Arctic and Pacific Island villagers can return to their ravaged villages ... and presents a plausible theory as to why all of these observed, verified events are occurring ... please link to it and let us all know!

Oh, and don't forget to include any scientific evidence that overturns the basic physics of CO2/GHG interaction with solar radiation, and the basic chemistry of CO2 and seawater ...

Mark Fredrickson @ 36 said:

Well Brad, you've made up your mind on the subject of global warming, so nothing will convince you otherwise.

"The subject of global warming" being that the globe is warming? Yeah, I've made up my mind, since we're all able to look at the data and the thermometers and see that the globe is warming. Is there something on that point about which I should not have made up my mind?

That's what I call good journalism. No one ever tried to "hide the decline."

Okay. I'll bite. "Hide the decline" is obviously referring to the stolen climate science emails. So, the question is, "hide the decline" of what, Mark? (Be careful when replying, because I already know the answer. The question is, do you? We'll find out soon, I guess.)

I found this interesting response to AP on the conflict of interest that their writer Seth Borenstein (of this article) has entered into.

My email to AP:
Please forward to:
Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations
Jack Stokes, Manager of Media Relations
(as listed on AP’s ‘Contact Us’ page)
I am a science teacher who is reading through the facts and opinions of the CRU ‘Climategate’ email and files in order to present my students with both sides of the debate. I have turned to the Associated Press coverage of many issues in the past, depending on your collective work for accurate quotes, balanced coverage, and unbiased reporting.
Today, I read a review entitled “E-mails show pettiness, not fraud”, linked here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...ns/us_news-environment//
The review was authored in part by AP employee Seth Borenstein, and the authors’ ultimate conclusion is that the emails do not show any problems with the science or the data but merely reveal the scientists being petty and human.
This is a fair opinion from an outsider, and one worth taking into account. However, I was troubled to find that Mr. Borenstein is not an outsider; in fact, he is one of the correspondents in the emails. On July 23, 2009, Mr. Borenstein wrote an email to ‘Kevin, Gavin, and Mike’, three of the principle climate scientists involved in the emails. The email is archived here, in a nested reply: http://www.eastangliaema...;filename=1248790545.txt
Mr. Borenstein wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano
is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
In my mind, this reads as the correspondence of an insider and a person who has a specific viewpoint. I have no problem with Mr. Borenstein having these views, but I am suspicious that there is a conflict of interest when he is supposed to be reporting in an unbiased and objective matter on the same material. His opinion of the emails’ contents has clearly been stretched into the review of referenced above. Because he is part of the email set that he is reviewing, I believe he should recuse himself of this story as a party with a conflict of interest.
The media, and especially the gold standard of the AP, has a responsibility to separate themselves from the stories they cover. Mr. Borenstein cannot separate himself from this issue because he is in the emails, so he should not be reporting on it, in my opinion.
According to the The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles (linked here: http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html ):
…ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.
I am questioning an aspect of Mr. Borenstein’s work, and I believe it should be taken seriously by him and by your organization.
The following two sections from the Statement of News Values and Principles also apply:
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The AP respects and encourages the rights of its employees to participate actively in civic, charitable, religious, public, social or residential organizations.
However, AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action. Nothing in this policy is intended to abridge any rights provided by the National Labor Relations Act.
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:
Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.
I request that these concerns be forwarded to Mr. Borenstein’s editors and supervisors. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this request and a response from Mr. Borenstein and other members of your staff that address conflict of interest issues. Thank you.
Joshua Lake

The entirety of this blog may be examined at:
http://wattsupwiththat.c...hig-about-it/#more-14097

I have to concur with Agent 99 that AP is very suspect - Kevin

Just to be clear, I think this climategate crap is a tempest in a teapot brought up to obfuscate the real science and the appallingly small offering of the United States at COP15.

The fact that the use of statistical analysis on some aspects of the research on AGW cannot do what they so desperately want it to do, for reasons abounding even all the pressure they are under to come up with it... to wit: money, funding for their departments... in no way besmirches the avalanche of hard science that is unequivocal about this mess.

It's at the point where it is idiocy to squabble over whether it is anthropogenic. We know there are mitigating measures we can take, and it is suicide not to take them. We're talking about mass extinction event level catastrophe... not some political mileage from trolls making this into a wedge issue polemic. The damage is not limited to your political opponents: It's to every living thing.

It is perfectly okay by me if people insist on depriving plutocrats of the fortunes they want to make on this too, but NOT at the price of waiting another second to do the kinds of things that might avert the worst of this catastrophe.

There is every solidly-based-in-hard-science reason for all humankind to be on this right now. All this climategate crap accomplished was a sideshow. This is on a par with a giant meteor on its way to smacking into our planet, and scientists trying to get missiles shot to break it up, while right wingnuts and anti-fascist lefties alike fight like hell to distract from the imperative to act.

Kevin Aho at #47... my yes, that is interesting: an environmental reporter seeking comment from climate scientists on a story he's reporting dealing with climate science.

Any progress on finding any scientific evidence that overturns any of the multitude of field data gathered in any of the other earth systems disciplines that are independent of and NOT involved with the CRU hacked emails?

While you're out looking for that, take a few moments to check these out!

Toward a Stalemate in Copenhagen: How Industry Pressures and National Agendas Dim Prospects for a Climate Treaty

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working --- here's the proof

THIS ISN'T POLITICS.

ONLY IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE ACTION CAN BE BENEFICIAL.

Kevin Aho @ #47 -

Please do not copy and paste such huge chunks of articles posted elsewhere into comments here. As I can't tell where your comment ends, and theirs begins, I'm leaving it intact for now. But I'd appreciate if you do not do that in the future, but rather pull a few grafs and link to the rest.

As to the "substance" of your nonsense, I believe Desi already spoke to it. A reporter asked for comment from experts. That was even noted in the AP article on their analysis as I recall.

But if you are desperate to find a conspiracy where none exists and/or cover your ass for having fallen for the "ClimateGate" con, that's up to you. If you want to be a patsy, I can't save you from yourself. But please don't do it with such long copy/pasted quotes here. Thanks!

BigDan – Sorry to disappoint on the whole ball of wax thing!

Regarding “do you want to stay on Big Oil…” My current position is:

Pursuing alternative energy, energy independence, and clean energy are worthy goals in and of themselves. Let’s consider this a “no regrets” strategy.

Hypothetically and for sake of discussion, let's set aside the climate issue and also set aside whether the "no regrets strategy" would (if all goals were attained) impact climate. Again, for discussion only.

We are left with enacting unilateral domestic economic incentives (taxes and tax credits and R&D incentives) that provide a smooth and steady path to these goals. Again, a wise domestic course economically and geopolitically, regardless of climate issues. It will certainly provide our domestic economy with a competitive advantage.

International long-term collaborative action is futile, because these agreements will surely be abrogated, regardless of the immediacy of climate issues, or lack thereof. It is a pipe dream that other nations without economic staying power or political stability will adhere to international CO2 cap and trade rubrics.

The bilateral agreements will fail because certain nations, even developed western nations, will eventually act in parochial self-interest due to domestic problems that arise over time. Moreover, when the first “developed” nation abrogates the agreement or comes back to the table to renegotiate, others surely will follow. Then the entire framework will collapse in the intermediate term.

By the same token, any form of payments, incentives, foreign aid or technology/resource sharing to underdeveloped countries to assist them in meeting emissions targets, will similarly fail due to corruption or incompetence.

I hate to sound cynical, but these bilateral agreements will fail in the intermediate term due to the reasons stated above.

That said, were I a policy-maker, I would encourage a measured march to the goals through non-drastic unilateral domestic action.

@DES #45 – Thank you for sharing the article and link. I am open-minded as to its position, and will look further into it as I consider my positions.

If indeed the planet were warming, as it has done on a cyclical basis for recorded history, are you suggesting that it's possible to control it?

This EMAIL's kind of interesting:

From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

Mark Fredrickson @53

What is possible to control is OUR contribution to climate change....mainly by controlling carbon emissions.

This site gives a nice explanation, even factoring in the solar cycle.

This isn't a natural earth cycle

Those who propose it is a natural earth cycle and that we are helpless against the outrageous overload in atmospheric carbon, whether it's a natural cycle or anthropogenic, are proposing we just let ourselves and much of everything else be killed off by it, and who/whatever manages to make it through alive shouldn't concern all us dead people. If they REALLY believe we should just kick back and let the chips fall where they may, why bother to keep working for a living? Why bother to post a comment on a blog? Yer just wasting what's left of your miserable life....

Direct quote from the link @55...

While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..."

I thought carbon dioxide was bad until I researched both sides of the debate as to its effect on the health of our planet. I was convinced by the the side that says this life gas has very little effect on temperature, and in fact usually shows up in greater quantities after global warming. Many of you, on the other hand, believe the science is settled, and that those of us who believe otherwise are akin to holocaust deniers. That we are in many ways a pathetic and retarded lot who only imagine there are real scientists, yes climatologists, who actually have proven to at least an equal number of thinking individuals that the science is at best hardly settled.
For every scientist who agrees with the anthropogenic warming theory, I could name one who says that there are other influences of far greater impact than man's on the changes in climate and temperature. What we are witnessing, I think, is scaremongering for global taxes beyond the representation and power of the electorate to ever resist, and a carbon trading scheme which will kill millions in the third world, make a lot of creepy control freaks even richer, destroy the sovereignty of the U.S.A., and destroy what's left of our industry. At the same time China will more than make up any difference our carbon reductions would have on the weather, if that is indeed possible.
The global club will have more wealth and power and continue life as they always have comforted by the fact that the noose has grown tighter around the slaves as these elites rush headlong into the New World Order(or global governance, as Al Gore describes it) they are always talking about. I want my children to live in a country free of genetically modified foods and animals, poisons in our water supplies, overgrazing, radical deforestation, endless wars of aggression, etc.. I think these are greater threats to our planet than carbon dioxide. I also want my children to be free. The real issue with global warming is that the proposed solutions will enslave us.
Maybe, when you ask "cui bono?," from all this fear-mongering, which used to be about global cooling a few decades ago, at least consider that it might be those who could care less about the planet or humanity, but only want most of us enslaved or dead, so that they alone can inherit the Earth. Just a crazy thought, I know.

Listen to me no you won't.
Hear me you will.
 
With thanks to a collaborative effort on behalf of the rogue network of HAARP and Norwegian  radio frequency hacks and the submarine /missile services of the United States and Russian Navies we can now show with graphic simplicity the "tunneling" effect we first exposed last week under the heading of every picture tells a story don't it?
 
Tonight we are pleased to present what it actually looks like when you cool space into two dimensions.
The Josephson junction scaled up to astronomical proportions demonstrates how much power we choose to ignore every second of every day.
 
How much longer do you think you can deny the obvious?
Free energy is suppressed and humans are repressed.
Sell out the norm..
Dream a new reality into existence. 
 
http://www.dailymail.co....splay-hovers-Norway.html

Dear Mark Fredrickson re:post#58

I recommend Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by James Hoggan.

It helps explain why there is so much confusion on this subject. I don't agree with your take on climate change but I'm with you in what you want for your children. Good luck to you.

Also, Mark Fredrickson re:post #58--

You say- I want my children to live in a country free of genetically modified foods and animals, poisons in our water supplies, overgrazing, radical deforestation, endless wars of aggression, etc.

The genetically modified foods, the poisons in our water, overgrazing, deforestation, and endless wars of aggression are all brought to us by the same system that has been instrumental in bringing us the climate change that you don't believe in.

I recommend--Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith
and
Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins

for two great reads that begin to lay it all out there.
Okay, I'll stop giving you assignments now.

Mark Fredrickson @58

I thought carbon dioxide was bad until I researched both sides of the debate as to its effect on the health of our planet. I was convinced by the the side that says this life gas has very little effect on temperature, and in fact usually shows up in greater quantities after global warming.

Others here have been really, really patient with you...I tend to think you're being obtuse and dense. The above quote from your comment tells me that you're the one who's settled and stubbornly or ignorantly not going to budge.

Despite numerous links and other direct simple science evidence presented here. You're convinced environmental agreements between nations is "a global enslavement play"...when actually it's about corporate responsibility ..If things were left to the likes of you...your children will be eating genetically modified food, drinking tainted water etc etc...All because you didn't believe simple the middle school science that you were taught. Earth's atmosphere is out of balance fool...

The industrial age has saturated the atmosphere with greenhouse gases...ie...carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, flourocarbons etc.

Maybe you should read or go to some of the links that good and patient people here have given you...be considerate to those that took the time to educate you.

You end 58 with this doozy

The real issue with global warming is that the proposed solutions will enslave us.

That tells me all I need to know...Please explain how we're not already enslaved by corporate propaganda spouting, income stealing central banks and defense industry chicken hawks that send your kids to war...We'll deal with our enslavement later...right now let's make sure there is a liveable planet to fight for.

deal ?

Kevin @ #47,
Wonderful breakdown. I found this out there and thought it spoke well about being suspect of AP and why.

Though maybe it was not your breakdown....?

Jallen: I think the U.S. should pursue clean, renewable energy regardless of whether there's such thing as Global Warming or not. Furthermore, respectfully, you say above that countries will break agreements, etc... That's irrelevant to US pursuing clean, renewable energy. Other countries may very well break agreements, but does that have any bearing on what I'm saying?

Can anyone answer this question: is there more scientific evidence and scientists for or against the existence of Global Warming?

...and it's 7:50 on the east coast, so I'm not nuts...

:)

BigDan - I thinke we are in agreement here. But believe it COP 15 has a bearing - You asked should we stay on big oil -

I replied that pursuing alternative energy, energy independence, and clean energy are worthy goals in and of themselves. So yes, get off big oil.

I further replied that, were I a policy-maker, I would encourage a measured march to the goals through non-drastic unilateral domestic action.

Unilateral is a key word here. Kyoto, Copenhagen and the like are, in my view, quixotic for the reasons I cited. By focusing our energies (pun intended) and incentives domestically, as we more quickly reach that goal.

I think in a couple of years when the world economy, already on the brink of collapse, fully implodes, you'll all find this, and other discussions like it, a wonderful luxury you can no longer afford. Carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced on a global scale as we are brought to our knees by the mother of all depressions courtesy of the Federal Reserve. The lot of you will be very happy, however, as you struggle for food and warmth knowing at least the Earth will be saved from global warming and that your masters will be jetting around from party to party pretending to find ways to save you. By the way to BlueHawk's, "We'll deal with our enslavement later...right now let's make sure there is a liveable planet to fight for": enslavement is not livable, and once established is not easily dealt with. Listen to Lord Monckton. Bye.

Mark Fredrickson @69

By the way to BlueHawk's, "We'll deal with our enslavement later...right now let's make sure there is a liveable planet to fight for": enslavement is not livable, and once established is not easily dealt with. Listen to Lord Monckton. Bye.

Mr. Fredrickson....The house is on fire. From your logic one would believe that the fire department's efforts to douse the blaze would enslave us.
It's a matter of priorities....

My point is that you're already enslaved...by the very propagandists you defend here. Corporations want to continue to irresponsibly pollute the planet...
They trot out false science to easy led folks such as you so that they can continue to abuse our resources and poison the globe, and make humongous profits at the expense of our children's health and future sustainablity.

The slavery you speak of isn't about to happen ...it already is.

You've been baited and switched to not see it. Your enslavers have you looking to their opponents as enslavers....Mr. Fredrickson...sorry to say...you've been had like a drunk in Vegas.

In a storage hanger in NYC sits a piece of the WTC that represents fourty floors of the fused into something they call the meteorite. There is only one explanation for how it came to be. Nuclear weapons were used against us by the powers that be. Does the AP report this truth? No. Just like they sat on the leaked emails for ten months. They will tell you what they want you to believe.

space weather from NASA and one of if not the oldest spaced based observatory. Here's lookin at you Sun.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/spaceweather/

Mark Fredrickson @ 58

For every scientist who agrees with the anthropogenic warming theory, I could name one who says that there are other influences of far greater impact than man's on the changes in climate and temperature.

Okay, here's a survey fromScience Daily from earlier this year detailing 3,146 earth scientists who "overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

Your turn. (Hint in advance: Before you "name" back to me that bogus "Global Warming Petition Project" showing "31,000 scienctists" who disagree, please know that petition is bunk. So I've named 3,146 earth scientists for ya. Please get back to me with your own 3,146.

The real issue with global warming is that the proposed solutions will enslave us.

Were we "enslaved" by previous such cap and trade plans (ones that happened to have worked) to curb acid rain and deal with the ozone issue? If those didn't enslave us, why will this one? Why would such a word even be used in this context here, but for those who oppose such plans entirely inserting such words into the discussion to freak the crap out of otherwise well-meaning folks?

Mark Frederickson @ 69 said:

Listen to Lord Monckton. Bye.

Which Lord Monckton should we listen to? The arguments of his that you're supporting in re: Global Warming? Or his arguments that those with HIV/AIDS should be put into internment camps for life?

Be careful which Glenn Beck "czars" you put your wingnut stock in. Bye.

Using a fallacy of irrelevance(genetic fallacy) concerning Lord Monckton doesn't bolster your argument Brad. Glenn Beck is a Judas Goat, by the way.

Lord Monckton smears climate change as a communist plot

Isn't it odd that everything...I mean everything that corporations oppose is a 'communist plot for world domination'. How convenient is that ?

Anytime society may want to regulate the power of corporations they're deemed "communists"...While the corporations continue to run governments of the world for their benefit...to pollute with impunity and rob us blind. Lord Monckton is a right wing corporate lackey....

Brad, the work you do on this site is great. You expose a lot of terrible things going on at the hands of the powerful and corrupt. That is what drew me to this site to begin with. But you are willing to believe that the motivations of those forming a world government and taxing each of us for our carbon footprint are benevolent. You actually place your trust in corrupt men who use the gullible to forward their agendas hoping for what? That this time these people who have sucked the world of much of its wealth are going to do the right thing? Argue all you want that carbon dioxide will be the death of us. I think there are a lot of other gases far worse, but the majority of us can't be put under yet another new system of control over our everyday lives as effectively except by the regulation and control of our carbon footprint. You are voting for tyranny.

To BlueHawk,
General Electric (GE), General Motors (GM), Ford (F), Shell (RDS.A), ConocoPhillips (COP), Dow Chemical (DOW), DuPont (DD), Alcoa (AA), American Electric Power (AEP), Caterpillar (CAT), John Deere (DE), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), and Nike (NKE) all support mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Even ExxonMobil (XOM) favors a carbon tax to discourage the burning of fossil fuels.

Can anyone with the title *Lord* be trusted to speak for the people's best interests ?

I mean come on now....

I'm sorry to create a stir. Responses to my weak attempts at arguing something that seems obvious are fascinating and keep me coming here, even though I need to get back to my job. I don't mean to make people angry, I just want a free country for my children, and it seems like they'll be living in a fascist police state soon if too many people stop caring about what it means to be vigilant in protecting those freedoms that God, not government gave us. I'm sorry for what my children will have to face in a world that is being handed over to people thoroughly corrupted by absolute power who revel in playing us for fools.

Mark Fredrickson @78

That's laughable...
You cite all those corporations supporting "mandatory" greenhouse gas controls....Which must mean they know that greenhouse gases are a big issue.

You've stated in previous comments that you don't think greenhouse gases are an issue. Now you cite all those corporations supporting "mandatory greenhouse gas controls".

Seems Mark you're now really contradicting yourself...

Please read the story linked BlueHawk. Corporations want in on the scam:

http://globaleconomicana...on-credit-extortion.html

Mark Fredrickson My Genetically Falacious Dude,

Please be a real dude and check out some of the info in the books I mentioned. You're on target with some things but pulling a Dick-Cheney-while-quail-hunting on a lot of stuff here. The sources I sited have all done serious homework on their topics as have many of my fellow Bradblogdinians here. It's fine if you want to fight but I'm trying to offer a little light.
happy hula hoops,
Dave

To Myself comment#83--

I'd like to apologize to the "l" I left out of fallacious.

Mark Fredrickson @80& 82

Please see the link in comment 5. I haven't read your link yet either, but I will when I get the chance...however in comment 5 the link describes how the corporations will scam any climate change agreements to make maximum profits.

As I've said many times...I'm not sold on cap 'n trade either. I am however sold on the fact that climate change is happening and it's cause by human activity. Brad has cited Montreal and other agreements where cap 'n trade like measures have worked very well, it just seems you've ignored those comments.

Your comments in 82 is a good place to stand on common ground. Corporate propaganda has divided the population to impotence about making any changes...While the corporate hegemony hums along. it's what they want...us too divided to do anything.

The word is CORRUPTION. Deal with it or accept it, and vote this garbage in. You can then engage in futile arguments with your rulers both in government and the corporations that own them, over the level of poverty and regulation you are willing to beg for as they rape the world while pretending to save it. You people really are blind and nothing will change that. Have fun feeling part of something big and noble. It's cool, ain't it, to save the planet for the elites. Enjoy your chains. I promise this is the last.

Beck, Breitbart ignore long-term trend to claim Arctic sea ice is increasing

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912150010

Andrew Breitbart's assault on journalism

Andrew Breitbart, the Matt Drudge protégé and Internet entrepreneur behind BigGoverment, BigHollywood, and Breitbart.tv --- with other sites in the works --- is trying to position himself as the avant-garde leader of conservative media. In reality, Breitbart is nothing new. He's merely the latest right-wing activist to digitize the conservative media machine that has held such sway in America for decades. As such, his work contributes not to the evolution of journalism, but to its dissolution.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912150025

I don't think anyone answered this:

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]
... Big Dan said on 12/15/2009 @ 4:50 am PT...

Can anyone answer this question: is there more scientific evidence and scientists for or against the existence of Global Warming?

Next, I'm going to quote myself quoting myself, so someone better answer that question!

Breitbart is muscling on on my using the word "Big" as in "Big Dan", with his "BigGovernment", BigHollywood", Big this and Big that...I have a mind to ask him to step outside!!!

Big Dan @ 88 asked:

Can anyone answer this question: is there more scientific evidence and scientists for or against the existence of Global Warming?

There is NO scientific evidence against Global Warming. None. The only issue in contention (and really, just barely, though magnetized to an actual "issue" by the wingbagger denialists) is whether the warming is caused by man in part, in totality, or none at all.

The vast consensus of the majority of legit earth scientists believe it's man made (otherwise known as Anthropogenic Global Warming). As noted upthread

Okay, here's a survey from Science Daily from earlier this year detailing 3,146 earth scientists who "overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

Mark Fredrickson @ 77 said:

Brad, the work you do on this site is great. You expose a lot of terrible things going on at the hands of the powerful and corrupt. That is what drew me to this site to begin with. But you are willing to believe that the motivations of those forming a world government and taxing each of us for our carbon footprint are benevolent.

No, not at all. I'm just not willing to believe there are "those forming a world government" or even "taxing each of us for our carbon footprints[s]" until I see any actual evidence of either one of those things.

"Evidence" does not include someone, somewhere (Beck, Alex Jones, etc.) telling me that "the powers that be are forming a One World Government", either.

You actually place your trust in corrupt men who use the gullible to forward their agendas hoping for what?

Absolutely not. Whoever said I did? And why would I do that?

That this time these people who have sucked the world of much of its wealth are going to do the right thing?

Also, absolutely not. Where did you get that idea? The discussion here is whether global warming is happening (it absolutely is), and what, if anything, can or will be done about it. I'm in favor of doing something about it. You?

And then @ 80 Mark said:

I just want a free country for my children, and it seems like they'll be living in a fascist police state soon if too many people stop caring about what it means to be vigilant in protecting those freedoms that God, not government gave us.

And it "seems" to me that you watch too much Fox "News". Otherwise, you'd have noticed that we've been fighting for all of the above here for the past six years. Glad you finally found us.

Free yourself from the chains! Turn off Fox "News" and get some actual information from Planet Earth!

The AP story is biased... figures.

http://deathby1000paperc...e-change-global-warming/

One of the authors is Seth Borenstein who can be found chatting with the CRU scientists in the very emails that are in question. Objectivity? Who needs objectivity when you have a political agenda? CO2 is what supports plant life which creates oxygen and food for our survival. It has never been proven to cause atmospheric warming. That is what the Sun does. Look up sometime instead of playing these stupid exhausting Right vs. Left games that get us NOWHERE.

Brad Friedman..one of the best journalists around. Period.

DNK @92

You're late kid...your theory was blown out the water way up thread.

Mark is right.

I don't see where the theory or whatever you call it was blown out of the water.. but here's 100 reasons why global warming is not man made.
Don't be so quick to jump into your politics. Check out some real facts.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

Just because someone links skeptical reports to a "Republican" (of which I am not) or "Big Business" (also of which I am not) doesn't mean you should kneejerk react to it in a religeous way (i.e. without checking facts).
Again, if anyone wants to go outside and look up at that huge ball of fire in the sky which heats our planet, then we will not have to pay more of our hard-earned money to these BIG BUSINESSES who will regulate our way of life.

Sorry, CO2 is good, not bad. Pollution on the other hand, well that's bad.

Dear Brad,
You're in LA, land of enchantment(apologies to New Mexico), madness, magic, and mystery. Could you find someone from Wonderland to cast a protective spell over your blog here? I'd really appreciate some sort of mirror spell that would reflect back to those from the completely projective worldview clan their own rants. And please pay the extra(I'll be glad to help with this as it's high time I sent another donation anyway)for the unconscious projected spiels when reflected back to cause an awakening and irresistable desire to do some serious studying that's combined with the capacity to distinguish reality from 100% pure bullshit. See if Dumbledore is wandering around the backlot at Warner Bros or maybe playing in a pickup basketball game at UCLA. Ask for the Curative Mirror Spiel Spell. I'd really appreciate it.

love,
Dave

DNK @96

I don't see where the theory or whatever you call it was blown out of the water.. but here's 100 reasons why global warming is not man made.
Don't be so quick to jump into your politics. Check out some real facts.

It was blown out of the water because as it relates to climate change; the AP, the emails or the cacophany from deniers that have suckled this manufactered controversy like mother's milk doesn't add one tittle to the debate of climate change. It's a straw man.
You see sir; the emails didn't dispute climate change or contradict the reality of it. That fact was dealt with way up thread...had you read the comments you wouldn't be taking this conversation back to square one. Unless you intended to make this a merry go round of your ignorance.
You haven't demonstrated any evidence that the stolen emails debunk man made climate change. There is no need to defend what hasn't been properly challenged.

There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

DNK I'm not gonna retrace what's already been done in this very thread. Too many people have posted solid scientific evidence that man made global warming is happening. I'm not gonna do your homework for you...read back find a commenter that accepts climate change as real...follow the links they provide.

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

Isn't it funny...you use the term "throughout human history" When the debate is since the industrial age, which is a tad over 100 years.
read this if you dare

The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

It's the ocean temp nimrod.

Just because someone links skeptical reports to a "Republican" (of which I am not) or "Big Business" (also of which I am not) doesn't mean you should kneejerk react to it in a religeous way (i.e. without checking facts).
Again, if anyone wants to go outside and look up at that huge ball of fire in the sky which heats our planet, then we will not have to pay more of our hard-earned money to these BIG BUSINESSES who will regulate our way of life.

Actually "skeptical reports" haven't been factual. It's not a republican thing, it's just that most deniers happen to vote GOP...What folks here are "kneejerk" reacting to is untruths as disseminated by the corporate media machine. There are many facts here that obviously you haven't checked or bothered to consider....you're projecting like a search light now.

Big Business is already regulating your way of life. Big Business writes and passes the legislation you live by...you pay their bills, you lap up their propaganda...you live by their dictates. They own your government.
You'll protect them from any responsibility for their actions at all costs and then project it onto us. It's exactly what you're doing here.

DNK @#96... "Sorry, CO2 is good, not bad. Pollution on the other hand, well that's bad."

CO2 is neither 'good' nor 'bad', DNK. It just exists. The issue is what happens when we add more CO2 than the earth's processes can naturally absorb at the rate we've historically enjoyed. One way of illustrating this would be to lock you in a sealed room with a houseplant and pump that room full of all that 'good' CO2 --- then watch what happens to both of you. Scientists say the houseplant would be affected and you wouldn't survive --- but why would you believe a bunch of scientists who are just after more research money, after all, until you've seen the results for yourself?

'Pollution is bad'. Yes. The way our system works now, pollution is free for industry - business pockets the profits and leaves the bill for cleanup to you, the taxpayer. You also get to pay for the impacts on public health, too, btw. Privatize the profits, socialize the pollution.

Here's a direct response to your link, FWIW:

Of course, even at the 100 list, they've accepted the scientific evidence that the earth is indeed warming.

It would save us all a lot of time if everybody would go first to the very detailed Skeptical Science.com, to see if whatever you're about to claim has been debunked already.

You also might be interested in seeing if you fit into one of these categories: 'How to comment on ClimateGate: a handy reference guide'.

And we're still waiting to see some linked, sourced evidence from anyone that overturns any the field data in any of the other earth systems disciplines that are independent of the CRU emails, temperature data and models, that overturns the basic physics of CO2/GHGs and solar radiation, or that overturns the basic chemistry of seawater interaction with CO2, or that shows glaciers and ice sheets are not exhibiting accelerating melt rates overall, species and ranges and not shifting, the hyrodological cycle is not shifting, sea level isn't rising, atmospheric CO2 is not increasing... or anything like that.

Des @99

You explained it much better than I did...

Brad said @ 91:
No, not at all. I'm just not willing to believe there are "those forming a world government" or even "taxing each of us for our carbon footprints[s]" until I see any actual evidence of either one of those things.
"Evidence" does not include someone, somewhere (Beck, Alex Jones, etc.) telling me that "the powers that be are forming a One World Government", either.
And it "seems" to me that you watch too much Fox "News". Otherwise, you'd have noticed that we've been fighting for all of the above here for the past six years. Glad you finally found us.
Free yourself from the chains! Turn off Fox "News" and get some actual information from Planet Earth!

BRAD, I stopped watching television 9 years ago--the best thing I ever did for the health of my brain. FOX news is a strange animal owned by a leftist who markets to the truly ignorant right. I am a Constitutionalist, and therefore no mainstream media exists for people like me. You are a very focused individual who knows very little of what's happening among the governments of the world and their efforts to establish a New World Order and carbon footprint tax to fund it.
Don't expect me to prove something that you can research and find in a hour through Google from both mainstream and alternative news research. What is going on in Copenhagen is a push toward global governance. You're a journalist; you can find all the evidence you need. It's not difficult.
And concerning Alex Jones: I discovered him about three years ago. I agree with him on most things. I came to my own conclusions about Bush's reference to the New World Order before I started listening to Jones, mainly as a result of what happened at Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC bombing and especially 911. The government agenda in all these acts of terrorism was pretty obvious: give the people a bogeyman(Islamo-fascists and militia types) to fight and they'll accept a loss of their freedoms.
I see similarities with the war on carbon dioxide. In the end nothing ever comes of the wars on anything but the enrichment of corporations, the military industrial complex and further control of we the people, as our freedoms are taken from us in exchange for a false security. I'm surprised you can't see the big picture. Believe it or not, the main book to make me aware of all of this was "1984." I read it in high school, then "Animal Farm," and "None Dare call it Conspiracy." Ever since I was 17 I realized the direction toward globalism and that at some point in the future the main thrust would be to establish a one world government. Now it so obvious that when I see a journalist of your caliber deny what is in our faces every day, I honestly don't know what to say. Sorry, I don't know how to format.

Mark Fredrickson @ 101 said:

You are a very focused individual who knows very little of what's happening among the governments of the world and their efforts to establish a New World Order and carbon footprint tax to fund it.

Apparently you are as well, as you're seemingly unable to offer any actual evidence for your assertion.

Don't expect me to prove something that you can research and find in a hour through Google from both mainstream and alternative news research.

As I suspected. You have no such evidence. It's just a feeling of yours, that you can't actually support. Too bad.

What is going on in Copenhagen is a push toward global governance. You're a journalist; you can find all the evidence you need. It's not difficult.

And yet you can't do it. Can't offer such a single shred of evidence. Who could have guessed it?

And concerning Alex Jones: I discovered him about three years ago. I agree with him on most things.

And who could have guessed that too? If u guys find that Kenyan birth certificate of Barack Obama's, btw, please let us know!

Ever since I was 17 I realized the direction toward globalism and that at some point in the future the main thrust would be to establish a one world government. Now it so obvious that when I see a journalist of your caliber deny what is in our faces every day, I honestly don't know what to say.

What did I "deny"? I simply asked you for evidence. You have none. Reading 1984 and books on conspiracy theories is not actual evidence. It's just paranoia (healthy or otherwise). But to take pot shots at me as a journalist because YOU are unable to support your position with anything other than your gut feeling --- well, I wasn't impressed by that when Bush Administration did it, anymore than I am impressed by it when you do it.

Nice try. But major fail, Mark.

Poor Brad. You refuse to investigate on your own, so, ergo, the push for global governance isn't real. Anyone who rejects outright, science on the other side of an argument is not going to accept any proof I have to offer. I, at least, have an open mind. I accept there is a legitimate argument. You don't even accept the fact that there is an argument worth considering. You say that that we've been warming as of late, when we've been cooling. Even Phil Jones admits to that:

To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

Here are a FEW links of interest for the "true believer Brad" to dismiss:
http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded
http://www.timesonline.c...nment/article6658672.ece
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark.

http://epw.senate.gov/pu...A-23AD-4F29-FE59494B48A6

http://wattsupwiththat.f...fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
Have fun with this Brad. Oh, I'm sorry, Wattsupwiththat doesn't count, just like Monckton doesn't count for something he said 20 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

What is so bizarre about this whole global warming argument for me is the incredible feeling of nausea I had when I took my regular visit to your site and noticed you'd bought the side of carbon dioxide causing the warming. I was surprised given your skepticism of paid for agendas . I realize now you are petulant and very gullible. I assumed you were someone else. Good luck in your endeavors. Your wisdom will come with years and by then it will be rather late for you and those you love. You are no better than Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Shaun Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly. They have either bought a lie or were paid to spread the lie.
I'll still visit your site for other journalism that matters, but on the subject of global warming, your support for what essentially will result in corporate fascism will do nothing but contribute to a life more miserable for you and anyone you care for. Cyclical global warming won't be ameliorated--it's natural. Provide proof that carbon dioxide causes warming. Provide proof that Medieval warming was harmful, or that any other warming period in Earth's past led to the destruction that you fear will occur if we don't go back to the stone age. You can't.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..."[1] The First Global Revolution, Club of Rome, an elite think-tank (David Rockefeller, Gorbachev, etc.) working with the UN.
"...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."[2]  Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider.
"The earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun."[3, page 4] Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”[4] Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment

COPENHAGEN – Shocked and shaken by the theft of the Auschwitz sign, the world community must now "take note" of another midnight action. This time its a deal brokered by US President Barack Obama at the largest and most important U.N. meeting ever on fighting global warming. The new deal, which abandons the most vulnerable of nations along with the world's biologically rich tropical forests, continues a pattern of what international representatives call a "real lack of transparency" by the White House. Obama dismissed the UN's criticisms of his unusual and undemocratic negotiating process as "cynicism" while declaring his unbinding document an "unprecedented breakthrough". Obama's document promises to funnel up to $100B a year through the UN Development Programme, widely known for its corruption. "The deal is a triumph of spin over substance," said Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International, it "kicks back" on the issue of "climate cash". Like the Nazis sending "6 million people into furnaces" in the Holocaust, Obama is condemning the world to wide-spread global warming deaths, other leaders pointed out. Meanwhile, outside in the cold, hundreds of European protesters chanted and carried signs of Obama with the word "shame" pasted on his face.

Last I knew the Pentagon believes in Global Warming. You'd think that would be enough for the Wingnuts, but I guess they are part of the conspiracy.

Oh, good grief, Mark, you really are a lost cause. You could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort by just going to SkepticalScience.com, as many very patient people have suggested to you, before wasting your time re-posting so many of the fully debunked denier arguments and whinings about the CRU emails. We're way ahead of you on all fronts. Try to keep up.

AGAIN, please enlighten us if you find anything that overturns the basic laws of physics of the interaction between CO2 and solar radiation, or the basic chemistry of CO2 and seawater. Please share with us your scientific research showing the glaciers and ice sheets are not showing accelerating melt rates overall, the oceans are not acidifying, the last decade was not the hottest in recorded history, that species and migration patters are not shifting, that the global hydrological cycle is not shifting, or ANYTHING that overturns any of the field data gathered in any of the multiple earth systems sciences that are wholly independent of and don't rely on data from the CRU or Phil Jones.

You apparently believe you are more qualified than the actual scientists themselves to assess the data, but haven't yet come up with anything that hasn't already been fully debunked (which you can see at SkepticalScience.com! Give it a try!).

Seriously, let us know if you find any verifiable, documented scientific evidence that doesn't rely on New World Order conspiracy theory ideology as your only support - because that's all political, and has nothing to do with, you know, actual science.

Oh, and where on earth did you dig up this?:

"which abandons the most vulnerable of nations along with the world's biologically rich tropical forests, continues a pattern of what international representatives call a "real lack of transparency" by the White House. Obama dismissed the UN's criticisms"

You really ought to consider seeking out some other news sources, because the "U.N." did not object to Obama's agreement, as your unsourced story above asserts. The U.N. "accepted" the Copenhagen Accord. Of the 193 U.N. nations, only six objected to the text, and most (but not all) of their objections were on procedural grounds, --- there were no "UN criticisms" as your "source" claims. Not sure how they figure that the first-ever international funding to protect the world's forests is equal to "abandoning" them, or where they got the idea that it will be administered through the UN Development Prorgramme. If you had better news sources, you'd also know that it was the Sudanese delegate who tried to equate the proceedings to the Holocaust, which you'd also know was highly ironic considering the Sudanese government is under investigation for perpetrating genocide in Darfur.