More

Phil Jones, Climatologist, Takes Case To Public After New Email Leak

RAPHAEL G. SATTER   11/23/11 05:57 PM ET   AP

LONDON — The British climatologist ensnared in a major new email leak took his case to the public Wednesday, arguing that he and his colleagues' comments have again been taken out of context.

The University of East Anglia's Phil Jones was one of the major players in the controversy that erupted two years ago over the publication of emails which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and attacking them in sometimes vitriolic terms.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is one of the world's leading centers for the study of how world temperatures have varied over time, and Jones came under particular scrutiny following the 2009 disclosures – even receiving death threats over allegations that he was a leading a conspiracy to hype the dangers of climate change.

Jones and his colleagues have since been vindicated by a series of independent investigations, but the university's reputation has been dented by criticism that it refused to share data with skeptics.

Jones said that his "heart did sink a bit" when he heard about the most recent leak, which apparently consists of old messages held back the first time around.

The university and other climate scientists believe the leak was delayed until now "to cause maximum disruption" to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.

When quizzed about emails that captured him and other researchers disparaging each others' work or raising pointed questions about the accuracy of climate models, Jones framed it as part of "the cut-and-thrust of scientific debate."

Several excerpts also seemed to be aimed at how best to present scientific findings to the public, but Jones said it was "foolish to think that scientists don't think about the how their message is received."

Jones also was asked about a message he wrote suggesting that emails could be deleted to dodge freedom of information requests. Both he and his university have been criticized for obstructionist attitudes toward Britain's right-to-know law, and the university now says it's far more open about sharing its data.

In his response, Jones appeared to suggest that the public need not interest itself in the inner workings of groups such as the International Panel on Climate Change, which produces authoritative reports on the future of the world's weather.

"Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?" Jones said.

Other excerpts from the 5,000-odd emails being circulated seemed to cover some of the same ground as the 2009 release, which unleashed an international furor over allegations that scientists were working behind the scenes to manipulate the science behind climate change. Several inquiries have since refuted the charges.

University of East Anglia's Vice chancellor Edward Acton, who flanked Jones as he addressed journalists, predicted less of a storm this time around.

"There's is so much deja vu about it," Acton said.

___

Online:

University of East Anglia: http://www.uea.ac.uk/

Raphael G. Satter can be reached at: http://twitter.com/razhael

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

LONDON — The British climatologist ensnared in a major new email leak took his case to the public Wednesday, arguing that he and his colleagues' comments have again been taken out of context. T...
LONDON — The British climatologist ensnared in a major new email leak took his case to the public Wednesday, arguing that he and his colleagues' comments have again been taken out of context. T...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 448
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:26 AM on 12/01/2011
Hide-the-Decline Plus

"….Mann et al do not mention anything about deleting adverse data. The Briffa reconstruction labeled in the legend as “Briffa et al scaled 1856-1980″, giving no clue to readers of hide-the-decline. Let’s now look at a magnified version of this graphic, blown up so that we can see how they handled the Briffa (orange) reconstruction. As sharp-eyed CA readers observed, if you squint closely, you can see that the Briffa reconstruction was chopped off before its end.

Indeed, they did not simply “hide the decline”, their “hide the decline” was worse than we thought. Mann et al did not merely delete data after 1960, they deleted data from 1940 on,….."

http://tinyurl.com/7e2gqjs
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
12:41 PM on 12/02/2011
Nothing was deleted. There is no reason to use data from sick trees when you have temperatures collected from scientific instruments. This denier attack is a lie based on a purposeful misinterpretation of a sentence fragment from a stolen email.
02:27 PM on 12/02/2011
"Nothing was deleted." Ok let's just say they were conveniently truncated after the Dendro-series quit following the "accepted" results. Odd the Briffa never mentions sick trees while conducting the research. Therefore it must be stated that 3 separate Dendro proxy series had sick trees and therefore needed the three series needed to be dropped.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:32 AM on 11/30/2011
As the shocking new revelations from the Climategate II emails released by the courageous Whistleblowers continue to roll in, Award Winning Science Blog WUWT, has a running commentary going as the Top Post.

Too many excellent postings to single them out! Truth Seekings will be glad for the entire thread!

Enjoy!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:28 PM on 11/30/2011
Enjoy what? Junk science thrown up by an ex weather announcer who has no climate credentials. Still the deniers are fascinated with him, just as they are with Rush and Glenn. They all see something in each other.

As for climategate 2, your first try was a sham, cooked up and promoted shamelessly by right wing media. Climategate 2 will be even more feeble.

"Courageous whistleblowers" This is dishonest. The email heist was conducted by parties hacking into private computes. There was no whistleblowing involved. This has been explained to Orkney in the past. She has no shame in throwing up the same smear and slander. This is why we throw flags. The shilling, the hijacking, the lies.
01:37 AM on 11/28/2011
Orkneygal here desperately wants us to believe the stolen emails are the work of a courageous whistleblower 'driven by integrity and conviction', whose motive is to protect the public against the alleged wrongdoings of climate scientists.

Wouldn't this 'courageous' individual, supposedly driven by integrity and the desire to expose the truth, want to release all the emails at the earliest opportunity so the 'truth' can be promptly liberated and the public duly informed?

Apparently not. The carefully timed, bit-by-bit doling out of cherry-picked email snippets stripped of their context, more accurately denotes the strategy of an unscrupulous smear campaign, with the shrewd objective of providing a public distraction on an as-needed basis indefinitely.

Just like the first batch of stolen emails, this batch will amount to nothing more substantial than a public distraction, albeit a costly one. The window for keeping the global temperature rise within a bearable 2°C limit is closing fast. We need to focus on a strategy to peak emissions, not on distractions.
02:56 PM on 11/28/2011
Yes, on one side, there's a smear campaign astroturfed by the Koch Brothers (oil/coal/gas companies).

On the other side, we have

the climatolog­ists' consensus:

http://www­.sciencema­g.org/cont­ent/306/57­02/1686.fu­ll

http://tig­ger.uic.ed­u/~pdoran/01­2009_Doran­_final.pdf

http://coa­st.gkss.de­/staff/sto­rch/pdf/Cl­iSci2008.p­df ;

And 11 separate “Climatega­te” review/exoneratio­ns, plus 13 “hockey stick” corroborat­ions:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/max­wells/clim­ate-email-­leak-unive­rsity-east­-anglia_n_­1107929_12­0351269.ht­ml ;

Plus, a set of billionair­es with a collective net worth of ~1/3 of a $Trillion dollars, who've acted on a/o publicly stated their belief in global warming:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/max­wells/clim­atologist-­phil-jones­-speaks_n_­1110389_12­0093635.ht­ml ;

And statements by Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Walmart, Apple, Ikea, Tesco, the DoD, CIA, 200 CEOs, and major investment groups collective­ly controllin­g $20 Trillion in assets that they believe global warming is a fact of life:

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­social/max­wells/clim­atologist-­phil-jones­-speaks_n_­1110389_12­0093380.ht­ml
02:57 PM on 11/28/2011
http://wal­martstores­.com/susta­inability/­9660.aspx?­sourceid=g­reenhouseg­as&ref=htt­p%3a%2f%2f­business.e­df.org%2fp­rojects%2f­walmart%2f­walmart-an­d-global-w­arming

http://gra­phics8.nyt­imes.com/p­ackages/pd­f/business­/apple-cha­mber.pdf

http://www­.prnewswir­e.com/news­-releases/­earth-hour­-is-coming­-up-ikea-a­nd-sustain­ability-pa­rtner-wwf-­encourage-­everyone-t­o-act-on-s­topping-cl­imate-chan­ge-8900009­2.html

https://se­cure.tesco­.com/today­attesco/gr­een/archiv­e/0609_glo­bal_warmin­g.shtml

http://www­.defense.g­ov/qdr/ima­ges/QDR_as­_of_12Feb1­0_1000.pdf

http://www­.fas.org/i­rp/agency/­dod/dsb/cl­imate.pdf

https://ww­w.cia.gov/­news-infor­mation/pre­ss-release­s-statemen­ts/center-­on-climate­-change-an­d-national­-security.­html

http://www­.bbc.co.uk­/news/scie­nce-enviro­nment-1535­2764

http://inv­estorsoncl­imatechang­e.com/wp-c­ontent/upl­oads/2011/­09/2011-In­vestor-Glo­bal-Statem­ent.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:53 PM on 11/27/2011
Noted Blogger Pointman has an update on his analysis of the patient and courageous whistleblower. A snippet and the link below.

"....They’ve sat on the new material for two years and apart from one possible communication, the ”no deal was done” comment on a blog, we’ve not heard a word from them. In that time, they’ve no doubt seen their motivations both lauded and slandered and have never came forward to either accept the plaudits or defend themselves from the attacks. That shows a level of patience and self-discipline only someone on a mission has. We’re very definitely looking at a person driven by integrity and conviction, someone who can’t be bought or sold, either by common coin or by popular recognition. People like that never give up and they’re nearly impossible to either spot or stop.

Keeping a secret that you know you can’t share with anyone else is a constant background stress. Keeping a very big secret is like having a giant boulder on your shoulders that gets heavier and heavier, grinding you down on a daily basis. It takes a huge toll on your resources but they’ve kept their secret successfully for two years. Believe me, that takes a mental and emotional strength that few people possess....."

http://tinyurl.com/7cnjyoq
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
03:27 AM on 11/28/2011
Orkneygal: "Noted Blogger Pointman..."

Translation from science denier-speak: 

"I have no idea who this 'Portman' blogger is, but by 'virtue' of his or her being a science denier propagandist he or she is therefore 'noted'."

Orkneygal: "...courageous whistleblo­wer..."

Translation from science denier-speak:

"If it wasn't clear 2 years ago that the leaker of the emails was an external hostile hacker with a clear political PR agenda, the fact that s/he or they waited 2 years to release more of the emails further demonstrates that this is an intentional PR obfuscation campaign to continue to manufacture unwarranted doubt about the science of global warming. I'll still deceptively call the illegal hacker(s) a 'whistleblower' though in an effort to keep the public mislead and confused - after all, there's one born every minute."

Orkneygal must have real contempt for her intended audience.

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
02:49 PM on 11/28/2011
Orkneygal, let's once again watch you deny that you're lying and shilling for the New Zealand chapter of the ICSC.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:29 PM on 11/27/2011
Willis has eviscerated Dr Jones magnificently.

Here's a snippet.

"And now you want us to believe that you never destroyed emails under FOI request? That claim doesn’t even pass the laugh test. The Information Commissioner said of your emails and actions that it was not possible to imagine “more cogent” prima facie evidence of contravention of the FOI Act. Unfortunately, as the Commissioner pointed out, the statute of limitations had run out on any crime by that time, so you were off the hook. But the evidence is still there, and the public’s statute of limitations on lying scientists hasn’t run out.

So don’t try to make me believe that you’ve never, ever, oh my no, haven’t ever destroyed emails subject to FOI. Your own words show that’s a joke. And don’t bother telling me that the “investigation” declared that you were whitewashed as pure as driven snow. I know that, I watched them apply the necessary coats of paint, it was quite an impressive process. The facts remain. You erased emails containing evidence of your malfeasance and you advised your confederates to do the same. You lied about it then. You subsequently lied about it to your friends on the in-house whitewash “investigation” committee. And you are lying to us about it now."

http://tinyurl.com/brl6a32
09:03 PM on 11/28/2011
Publicola:

"Orkneygal parrots and hypes a cherry-pic­ked quote [1] taken out of context that - when placed in proper context - means nothing of importance­.

...the email [2] that cherry-pic­ked quote is taken from makes clear that Dr. Ken Biffra, the scientist under personal attack [3] by prominent "skeptical­" blogger Steve McIn­tyre was then undergoing significan­t health issues. Thus the author of the email did not wish to disturb Biffra wrt responding to the personal attack, and was thus consulting other scientists with expertise on the specific issue as to how to technicall­y address the attack in a public response.

Second, public and technicall­y-detailed responses to McIntyre's personal attack followed within days after that email was sent, both from RealClimat­e and directly from Dr. Biffra himself. [4]

I.e., there's no "there" there; Orkneygal is once again exposed as a relentless denier propagandi­st who is once again trying to mislead the public."

[1] "So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimat­­e."

[2] http://foi­a2011.org/­index.php?­id=2693

[3] Steve McIntyre directly accuses Dr. Ken Biffra of personal dishonesty­: "The tree ring data was hand-picke­d to get the desired result."

[4] http://www­.realclima­te.org/ind­ex.php/arc­hives/2009­/09/hey-ya­-mal/
http://www­.cru.uea.a­c.uk/cru/p­eople/brif­fa/yamal20­00/ "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Publicola/climate-email-leak-university-east-anglia_n_1107929_120490261.html
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:46 PM on 11/28/2011
Thanks for this insight. Makes Orkneys behavior more reprehensible than ever.

As for the great email heist, I hope those guys are rounded up and dealt with.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Hicks
Science > Your opinion
06:03 PM on 11/29/2011
OH NO! There;s aparently a HUGE cnspiracy to tell everyone global warming is REAL!!! No one could EVER overturn it by simply revealing their marching orders or providing evidence of their being paid off to lie. WHY aren't the scientists, whose whole job is to disprove other scientists, coming out in droves to out the global warming lie? It is incedibly improbable that any amount of payola could keep every novice scientist from simply breaking the illusion, were global warming to be false: There's absolutely no way you could give every scientist in the world enough incentive to maintain the lie. Absolutely NO WAY. Please, provide your best evidence, and I'll shoot it down. You cannot competently argue with this. There is no practical way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
03:15 PM on 11/27/2011
Email 5215: Phil Jones wants a Nobel Peace Prize certificate to hang on his wall; Trenberth wonders where the cash will go
Email 5215

Hi Phil
I am in DC at NRC mtg. Poor reporting here too, even in Boulder. MOst just mentioned Gore, not
IPCC. Be nice to get a nice certificate. Wonder where the $ will go?
Kevin
> [Phil Jones] Just sent an email to Martin and also Renate suggesting that
> when Patchy collects the prize in Oslo, IPCC gets it scanned and sent to all of us on
> AR4. We can then print it off, frame it and put it on a wall! They won't
> get it for ages. It might be worth a few more of us suggesting something like this.
> I know its for more than just AR4, but for all the Assessments, but they
> will only have these recent email lists.
>
> Secondly, next time you see Chris Landsea, maybe you can tell him he opted out the prize!

Bearing in mind they now hand out Nobel Peace Prizes with McDonald Happy Meals I reckon he's got a good shot at one..............................LOL
12:08 PM on 11/27/2011
Biggest non-story of the decade re-hashed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
07:40 PM on 11/26/2011
DId anyone notice the Forbes article and Heartland Institute both implicitly condoned the theft by not acknowledging that the theft was illegal?

Have any of the folks, who are quoting the article in their posts, acknowledged that the theft was illegal?

If Forbes lacks ethics and the posters lack ethics what credibility should either be afforded?

I suppose it is about ideology being above the law. It apparently is just fine to steal something if it can be used or twisted to support ideological perspectives.

Until they acknowledge that theft is illegal, their comments are just plain incredible (unbelievable).
05:31 PM on 11/26/2011
11 “Climategate” exonerations, 13 “hockey stick” corroborations

Feb2010, RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning Allegations of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University “Finding 1: After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.“

“Finding 2: After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4. “

Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar.

http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
05:36 PM on 11/26/2011
2. March 2010, UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

“...insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”— we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

3. April 2010, Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel, UK:

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
05:37 PM on 11/26/2011
4. May 2010, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:

“The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has investigated the scientific foundations for the IPCC summary conclusions of the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 on projected regional climate-change impacts, at the request of the Dutch Minister for the Environment. Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significant errors. The Working Group II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report shows ample observational evidence of regional climate change impacts, which have been projected to pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, under increasing temperatures.“

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf

5. June 2010 RA-10 Final Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann, The Pennsylvania State University June 4, 2010,

“The Investigatory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Dept. of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University. More specifically, the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”

http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
05:25 PM on 11/26/2011
There are a lot of undercurrent items flying back and forth.

The AGW group would have believe that it is a storm in a teacup. (Real Mad-Hatter-ish)

The Denialists (who will probably embrace this epithet as it shows that the AGW crowd often belittle themselves and indulge in a lack of debating skills) would have you believe it is NOT
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
11:34 AM on 11/27/2011
This, from a guy who just downthread claimed that his characterization of an official scientific assessment on global warming by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences* as not being "in the world of reality" is not a smearing of said official scientific assessment "in the slightest."

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
* U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
02:30 AM on 11/26/2011
You can bet Faux news will exploit this story,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
04:55 PM on 11/26/2011
It worked the first time this denial scam was run so I have to agree with you.
12:02 AM on 11/26/2011
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;

(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and

(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Wood
12:10 AM on 11/26/2011
Do you know who wrote this article???

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
12:43 PM on 11/26/2011
"The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian think tank based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris... "Smoker's rights" is one of their favorite issues, which comes as no surprise as a Philip Morris executive once sat on their board of directors. They have consistently denied the link between second-hand smoke and cancer. They are also a font of global warming denial, publishing "research" by notorious deniers Anthony Watts and S. Fred Singer. No surprise, once again, that an Exxon exec once sat on their board as well."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
12:34 AM on 11/26/2011
Another so-called "skeptic" unskeptically parrots Heartland Institute propaganda.

Shocking, isn't it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bogstomper2
A secular conservative
09:22 PM on 11/25/2011
The sad thing is that the deniers know they're doing wrong by taking quotes out of context. Even children know that's a dishonest game. Conservatives especially should know better, since twisting someone's words is a form of bearing false witness.

So my conservative compadres have to rationalize their way out of their intellectual and moral obligations by pretending that context doesn't matter. They simply embrace the dishonesty. It's a stunning reversal of what are supposed to be traditional conservative values.

Of course, when you look at the deniers running for the presidency, stunning reversal seems to be a theme, as does loyalty to the idea that corporations outrank citizens. That should be enough to tell you that denialism about climate change is *not* a natural outgrowth of genuine conservative principles. It's a corporate product you're being sold by professional salesmen like Limbaugh and Beck.
photo
DocSkull
My questions aren't rhetorical.
02:29 PM on 11/26/2011
"The sad thing is that the deniers know they're doing wrong by taking quotes out of context."

When they tried to get qualified people to redo the science, they ended up confirming the science. Lying is their only strategy.
08:51 PM on 11/25/2011
Starting next Monday in Durban, Africa has the opportunity to remind the rest of us why inaction on climate change is not an option. This is the real story. This is the story the hackers don't want us talking about.

"The 175 or more developing countries are now talking more as one, and the great illusion trick of the rich world is wearing thin. What has changed, they ask? The science of climate change is firmer than it ever was. [...]

Any postponement of a deal, they say, is not just dangerous politics, it is criminal negligence, consigning the poor to oblivion. If treasuries can find trillions to bail out dodgy banks, if financiers can be paid hundreds of millions in bonuses and the politics of Europe can be redrawn in just a few weeks, then why can't the rich and big-emitting countries make a deal to try to avert what could be the greatest problem the planet has faced? In short, why are world leaders gambling with the fate of the planet?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/24/durban-big-emitters-fail-climate-change?commentpage=4#start-of-comments

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/tackling-the-communicatio_b_1108960.html?ref=climate-change
09:03 AM on 11/26/2011
"Starting next Monday in Durban, Africa has the opportunit­y to remind the rest of us why inaction on climate change is not an option. This is the real story. This is the story the hackers don't want us talking about."

It appears that the US Media are the cause of why people are not talking.

We needed Climategate2 to even get it to HP.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
12:08 PM on 11/26/2011
Mass media has a well-known sensationalist bias.

Reality has a well-known scientific bias.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
07:40 PM on 11/26/2011
Yes. We need better leaders.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]