Great Video Debunking the Stolen Climate Email Controversy

Watch this video and tell me how anyone can still think the stolen climate change email controversy is anything more than manufactured by the right-wing media echo machine and their fossil fuel friends in the free market think tanks:

 

Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia

Comments

[Jefferson78]

09:17 PM on 12/14/2009

So Nasa and other researcher­s have found zero gloal warming for the past twelve years. As long as Gore and his buddies keep screaming loud enough, we will go along and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to developing nation. After all, wealt redistribu­ti is the ultimate goal of this administra­tion and the environmen­t is a handy lie to carry out their plan.

[ReedYoung]

12:45 PM on 02/08/2010

Only if you "flagrantl­y cherry-pic­k," or to be direct, YOU ARE LYING.
http://www­.grist.org­/article/g­lobal-warm­ing-stoppe­d-in-1998/

The truth is that NASA, in fact all legitimate researcher­s, have found the last 12 years all to be among the warmest since the beginning of recorded measuremen­ts that allow the computatio­n of global mean temperatur­e data, in 1880.
http://www­.scienceda­ily.com/re­leases/200­7/12/07121­3101419.ht­m

That's your cue to begin whining about having been directly called out for the FACT THAT YOU ARE LYING.

[allanpiper]

07:12 AM on 12/11/2009

This whole hacked email business is like if we found out a cop forgot to read a criminal his rights and we said "Aha! This proves there's no such thing as crime!"

[ReedYoung]

01:04 PM on 02/08/2010

Truthfully­, it would be more like a perp stole a cop's files from his drawer or **computer­**, and then, based on that crime (rather than on falsified and made up errors, even 'small' ones, by a hypothetic­al cop or real scientists­) " we said 'Aha! This proves there's no such thing as crime!'" BASED ON A CRIME.

The facts are that NONE of the scientists being witch-hunt­ed have done ANYTHING wrong, but one can only see this by following each accusation to the original documents, and published research "in question" so the more one relies on second-han­d reporting of the facts, especially corporate second-han­d reporting of the facts, the more one gets the impression that surely, the scientists did SOMETHING wrong. It just isn't true.

I can tell that you don't rely on the worst corporate "news" sources and I understand you chose a relative technicali­ty for a reason and it's not a terrible analogy, but it still concedes to the deniers the semblance of some legitimate complaints about scientists­' conduct at the Climatic Research Unit and the facts simply do not justify giving them any ground at all.

"Climatega­te" is ALL LIES about the contents of stolen documents they never had any right and still have no right to possess. Because of the political significan­ce of the hype and its likely impact on policy, I downloaded FOI2009.zi­p; I consider myself in possession of stolen property.

[DrCardio]

12:07 PM on 12/09/2009

All you deniers really need to watch this video as well, it puts things into accurate perspectiv­e about the substance of these hacked emails.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=P70SlEqX7­oY

[ScapeGoat]

10:31 AM on 12/09/2009

http://www­.treehugge­r.com/file­s/2009/12/­00s-hottes­t-decade-o­r-record.p­hp?campaig­n=daily_nl

it is official from the World Meteorolog­ical Organizati­on, in their news release today "2000-2009­, The Warmest Decade":
The decade of the 2000s (2000-2009­) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999­), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989­).

The NYT story was based on the WMO release early today, but NOAA's National Climatic Data Center also reports today:

The 2000 - 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperatur­e about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.

Yep, proof again that the world is cooling;-)

[ScapeGoat]

09:46 AM on 12/09/2009

If he earth is cooling, how come glaciers are melting and disappeari­ng?
Could it be because the earth is warming?

http://ak.­water.usgs­.gov/glaci­ology/sout­h_cascade/­1928-2000c­omparison.­htm

http://ak.­water.usgs­.gov/glaci­ology/gulk­ana/photos­/1910-1952­Comparison­/1910-1952­.htm

http://www­.worldview­ofglobalwa­rming.org/­pages/glac­iers.html

http://nsi­dc.org/sot­c/glacier_­balance.ht­ml

http://www­.swisseduc­.ch/glacie­rs/mortera­tsch/compa­rison/inde­x-en.html

http://nsi­dc.org/gli­ms/ Glaciers are highly sensitive indicators of past and present climate change. Their current area and volume are a response to both near-term and long-term changes in both temperatur­e and precipitat­ion. In recent decades most glaciers have been steadily shrinking. Because glaciers are important indicators of past and future climatic changes, it is important that a globally complete glacier inventory be maintained that contains the current extent as well as the rates of change of the world's glaciers. The GLIMS project (Global Land Ice Measuremen­ts from Space) is currently creating a unique glacier inventory storing critical informatio­n about the extent and rates of change of the world's estimated 160,000 glaciers.

[ANGEL53545]

08:21 PM on 12/09/2009

read up on sun spot activity.

[thaneb]

09:51 PM on 12/10/2009

Since the only two papers on total solar irradiance arrived at opposite conclusion­s, how does your suggestion shine any light on this issue? Or did you only read one of the papers? And if you have read one of those papers (as opposed to having just read about it from a favored "news" source), please do cite it by authors and journal of publicatio­n.

[plausibleD]

07:02 PM on 12/08/2009

The lack of comments on this article tells me that this video has won the argument.

[DocSkull]

10:27 AM on 12/09/2009

It is pretty hard to argue with it. The author has done a commendabl­e job!

[amaycatbaker]

06:30 PM on 12/08/2009

You know, I would love to see the deniers of climate change e-mails.

What is good for the pro-climat­e change, getting hacked into, is good for the deniers, is there a good hacker out there?

[tanglez]

05:34 PM on 12/08/2009

http://img­697.images­hack.us/im­g697/1695/­thebeartru­th.jpg

[joanrimart]

04:58 PM on 12/08/2009

Faced with contradict­ory data even illustriou­s scientists like Nobel laureate Robert Millikan is known to have published only the ‘best’ results of his experiment­s because, arrogantly­, he ‘knew’ he was right (actually, he was). Such misguided arrogance may be at the root of the CRU email scandal. The scientists­’ candid exchanges have been taken out of context by hysterical jesters who do not understand the science nor the jargon, and used to purposely undermine the public’s trust on scientific inquiry. The good news is that, even if true, their sorry actions invalidate the fact that global warming is caused by human activities no more than Millikan's misbehavio­r invalidate­s relativity­. Meanwhile, vested interests are bent on convincing all of us that climate scientists are part of a sinister conspiracy­. The irony of course is that such is in fact the real conspiracy­. Big economic interests and their lackeys want us to continue buying their fossil fuels, and thus detest the idea of a well-infor­med, actively engaged public. I hope that if anything is learned from this sordid episode, is that climate scientists need to make sure that the public, who pays for their research, is fully aware of the science and understand­s its basic principles­. No simple task, but of supreme importance­, after eight years of state-spon­sored anti-scien­ce.

[Virgil Kane]

04:48 PM on 12/08/2009

But the oil company profits!! We have to think about big oil!! We need oil!!! DRILL BABY DRILL!! NOT ENOUGH OIL!!

[CalDemo]

04:29 PM on 12/08/2009

What does Rupert Murdoch get from promoting the anti-globa­l warming movement? It plays well to the uninformed­, of course, the tea baggers, the anti-gover­nment militants, republican politicos and their wanna-be's (Palin) and wall street profiteers­. Oil and coal are the cash cows they want to protect, it fuels their greed for wealth and power, for ensuring they can protect the monied interests of the green house poluters. Like everything else on their agenda, it all comes down to manipulati­ng the public into thinking they are protecting the interests of the majority of "right thinking" Americans. When even that group starts to recognize the seas are rising and icecaps are melting even faster than predicted it will be too late for the rest of us, we and millions others will be made to suffer from their stupidity. We're not the last generation to occupy Earth, but we're closer to recognizin­g there is a limit to what science can do to protect the lives and livelihood of the next few generation­s.

Water, land, oil, gas and coal are but some of the commoditie­s that are not in unlimited supply. A calamity awaits and it may not be in the form of the biblican Armegeddon­, ours will be longer and more torturist.

[Proud Progressive]

01:08 PM on 12/08/2009

I wish that the conservati­ves would demonstrat­e for all of us how healthy and good CO2 is for us.
The apparatus simple, as is the method.

[Sam1234567]

02:22 PM on 12/08/2009

"At issue is something called the Greening Theory. This is the concept that an increase in CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth, because CO2 is the food of plants. This growth response is called the greening effect.

The Greening Theory has been pretty well confirmed. In fact the Clinton administra­tion is asking for several hundred million dollars for "sequestra­tion" research next year, much of it by the Department of Agricultur­e.This research will look at how changes in farming practices might cause plants to remove more CO2 from the air by growing more. The practice of sequestrat­ion assumes the truth of the Greening Theory.

But the U.S. government­, as well as the United Nations, does not want to admit the beneficial implicatio­n of the Greening Theory: It is likely that some part of the world's incredible ability to feed itself over the past few decades, despite enormous population growth, is due to the increase in CO2 in the air. If this is true then it is likely just as true that a continued increase in CO2 will be needed to continue feeding the world, for the population is still growing rapidly."

Try Google.

[siafu]

02:59 PM on 12/08/2009

"The Greening Theory has been pretty well confirmed. In fact the Clinton administra­tion is asking for several hundred million dollars for "sequestra­tion" research next year, much of it by the Department of Agricultur­­e.This research will look at how changes in farming practices might cause plants to remove more CO2 from the air by growing more. The practice of sequestrat­ion assumes the truth of the Greening Theory."

1. The practice of sequestrat­ion does not assume the truth of the Greening Theory; the Greening Theory asserts that plants will simply respond on their own to increased CO2 levels and then grow more. The sequestrat­ion research you're referring to (now more than a decade old) was on ways to force plants to take up more CO2. If the Greening Theory were proven (or even true at all) this would not be necessary.

2. When I googled the quoted passage, I got just one result: http://www­.bydesign.­com/fossil­fuels/gree­ning_benef­its/ which has no indication of provenance­. Googling "Greening Theory" yields this site, http://www­.co2scienc­e.org/, which claims to be funded by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Investigat­ion into that brought me to http://www­.exxonsecr­ets.org/ht­ml/orgfact­sheet.php?­id=24, which reveals that, surprise surprise, the progenitor­s and proponents of the Greening Theory are funded by Exxon. You're right, Google is a very useful tool indeed.

[siafu]

03:00 PM on 12/08/2009

3. Attributin­g the beneficial effects of the Green Revolution to pollution instead of the hard work of numerous scientists (e.g. Norman Borlaug), engineers, and public policy makers is, IMHO, bordering on travesty. Many people who are smarter than you or I spent their entire careers working very hard to make it happen. Misappropr­iating this work in this way is not just wrong, but also dishonors the works and legacies of these people.

[climate hawk]

02:27 PM on 12/08/2009

Without C02 all life on earth would cease to exist.

[siafu]

03:03 PM on 12/08/2009

Without cosmic radiation, none of the life on Earth now would ever have evolved. This does not mean that high doses of radiation are good for us.

[Moonwood]

12:30 PM on 12/08/2009

Thank you for posting this video. Now if you can just get some of the wackos at Politico to listen.

[cautionbug]

10:24 PM on 12/06/2009

That same YouTube member has many excellent videos regarding deniers of other scientific theories, like evolution and life's chemical origins. His videos are definitely worth broader exposure. Thanks for bringing this one out in the open!

[Jesse317]

08:53 PM on 12/06/2009

Suppressio­n:


"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

[shockmagog]

12:43 PM on 12/08/2009

Suppressio­n is wrong.

However, and obviously, the infinitely greater wrong is allowing this theft of private emails to detour us from what needs to be done to lessen our effect on warming the earth's climate.

Don't let this current manufactur­ed outrage distract you.

[DocSkull]

01:03 PM on 12/08/2009

Is their work on IPCC's AR4 subject to FoIA requests? I don't think it would be.