Nearly quarter of a million new Climategate emails have been released on the internet in the third major info-dump of climate scientists’ documents.
The latest release of 220,000 emails is being dubbed “Climategate 3.0”, and will take days for skeptic websites to pore through.
Among the revelations are emails revealing climate scientist Tom Wigley thought the work of outspoken climate activist and author Naomi Oreskes was “useless”, and that climate scientists secretly knew the hockey-stick graph used by Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth, and the UN IPCC reports, was “crap”.
The first Climategate dump came in 2009 on the eve of the Copenhagen climate conference, and caused a worldwide scandal in climate science.
Instead it’s about holding onto power and academic prestige to backdown. The Leftards have dug a big hole for themselves over the whole deceitful over exaggerated fraud scam of AGW/CC. They have to keep the spin going even if their inner circle realise it’s crap.
The old story. Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the new truth. The New truth straight out of the school of Goebbels Propaganda Ministry.
Two, to continue to get funding, many scientists tailored conclusions for their peer-reviewed research that reflected belief in AGW. However, those same papers often included facts that supported skeptical scientific conclusions. I published more than a hundred of these in my book Air Con. http://www.amazon.com/Air-Seriously-Inconvenient-Global-Warming/dp/0958240140
Ergo, basing an appeal to consensus (always a dodgy concept in science) on statements of opinion expressed in peer reviewed papers by scientists who rely on funding, as opposed to the data they actually contained, is bad science but probably effective PR from Desmogblog’s POV.
Comments are closed.
Copyright 2017, Investigate Magazine
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
What is it with leftist’s brains, that they haven’t seen through the AGW scam yet?
What brains?
See what you get with an AGW activist masquerading as a judge.
http://nzwindfarms.wordpress.com/
I think this is probably why leftists haven’t seen through the AGW scam yet –
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
To a degree it has nothing to with brains.
Instead it’s about holding onto power and academic prestige to backdown. The Leftards have dug a big hole for themselves over the whole deceitful over exaggerated fraud scam of AGW/CC. They have to keep the spin going even if their inner circle realise it’s crap.
The old story. Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the new truth. The New truth straight out of the school of Goebbels Propaganda Ministry.
gubulgaria, you are such a womble. The desmogblog post you link to has two problems. One, Desmogblog is the product of a PR agency tied to the green-industrial complex, ie, it has a financial interest in pushing belief in AGW. http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/look-whos-paying-global-warmings-top-bloggers/comments/page/2/
Two, to continue to get funding, many scientists tailored conclusions for their peer-reviewed research that reflected belief in AGW. However, those same papers often included facts that supported skeptical scientific conclusions. I published more than a hundred of these in my book Air Con.
http://www.amazon.com/Air-Seriously-Inconvenient-Global-Warming/dp/0958240140
Ergo, basing an appeal to consensus (always a dodgy concept in science) on statements of opinion expressed in peer reviewed papers by scientists who rely on funding, as opposed to the data they actually contained, is bad science but probably effective PR from Desmogblog’s POV.