wrote in message
...
On Jan 4, 5:23 pm, "
wrote:
Climategate: The Stink is Unavoidable

Climategate: Failure of a Blind and Biased Mainstream Media
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, January 4, 2010

Failure of a Blind and Biased Mainstream Media.

Well, the people with brains developed Digital Books,
Holographics, Laser Disks,
mp3, mpeg, Desktop Publishing, HDTV, Home Broadband, Cyber
Batteries,
Weather Satellites, Digital Terrain Mapping, Atomic Clock
Wris****ches,
Post 1950 Cell Phones, Muliplexed Fiber Optics, Self-Assembling
Robots,
Thermo-Electric Cooling, Microwave Cooling, XML, USB, Data Fusion,
Self-Replicating Machines, Compact Flourescent Lighting, UAVs,
Drones, Pv Cell Energy,
Hybrid-Electric Energy, Microcomputers, Software Emulators,
Distributed Processing Software,
UAVs, GPS, and The 21st Century, simply merely because the only
other option is to live forever
with the uneducable Media Maxwellians





It’s beyond belief
that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the
emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as
Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s
watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the
Bush administration, ”You know governments are going to lie, but not
the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving
there are lies of commission and omission.

Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of
political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind,
albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely
said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much.
Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-
mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go
to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to
me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception just as
they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most
led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the
problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence. There’s
no excuse for missing the biggest story in history. It proves the
adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
To See Ourselves As Others See Us

Michael Mann, the most aggressive, bullying and deceptive member of
the CRU gang, claims without embarrassment there’s nothing significant
in the emails. As Keith Briffa wrote, It is puzzling to me that a guy
as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
more objectively.” He even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one
noted on October 26 2003, “Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise
on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will
react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the
past….” A psychologist can probably identify these behavior
characteristics.

In a Washington Post article Mann said the content “doesn’t alter
evidence for climate change.” It’s the confidence trick they’ve always
used exploiting the fact most people don’t know how much climate
changes naturally. As a result they can report natural change as
unnatural and by implication caused by humans. The real issue is the
cause of climate change. Now we know how the CRU gang used deception
to falsely prove it was human produced CO2. But the mainstream media
brush it off, ignore it, or deliberately play along with the CRU gang
denials. A good example of the latter was the action of the Associated
Press (AP) identified by a Washington Times editorial titled, “Biased
Reporting on Climategate - Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows.”
They wrote, “There’s a big difference between saying that there is
insufficient evidence to determine if falsification occurred—and that
there should be an investigation—and saying, as AP did, “Science not
faked.” The Times is wrong because it’s incorrect to say there is
insufficient evidence, but it is a measure of poor journalism.

The Stink is Unavoidable

Evidence of wrongdoing in the emails doesn’t require understanding of
the science. Any objective reading quickly dispels the claim they are
normal banter between colleagues.

On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones,
“Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a
cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of
wasted time.”“We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive
Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to
expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the
silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead
author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??” They’re talking about
releasing an annual global temperature a month before the year is
over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they
think deceiving the public is “fun”.

On March 11, 2003 Mann acknowledges they silenced skeptics by
criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. They could
do this because they believed they controlled peer review of climate
change papers. Mann writes, “This was the danger of always criticising
the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”.
Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what
do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate
Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should
encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no
longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need
to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues
who currently sit on the editorial board.”

On May 29, 2008 Jones directs Mann to delete emails about requests for
Freedom of Information.

On 24 April 2003 Wigley upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role
proposes to mislead the publishers, “One approach is to go direct to
the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived
as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of
refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is
true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the
journal is seen by the community that counts.”Is this normal discourse
between academics?

On 21 Jan 2005 Jones writes to Wigley about requests under the Freedom
of Information Act, “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign
with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“Why would he need to
hide?

On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, I can’t see either of these papers being
in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even
if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Even if the
malfeasance wasn’t obvious a check of the role of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review all
literature would disclose it.

On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “If they ever hear there is a
Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file
rather than send to anyone.” “They”are McIntyre and McKitrick (MM)
names already familiar in the mainstream media.

On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; a red flag is waved by the comment,
“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which
were not always the same.” The only need for science is accuracy and
openness, which means the IPCC is not about science. That alone should
trigger further investigative journalism.
Unbelievable Ignorance

Those involved in the original deception now present ludicrous
arguments. The journal “Nature"used in the corruption of the peer-
review process and biased throughout says, “If there are benefits to
the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that
denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the
form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US
and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need
to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”

Absolute rubbish! They should read their guidelines, which say in
part, An inherent principle of publication is that others should be
able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims.
Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that
authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols
promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).

The ability to reproduce results is fundamental to science.

Jim Hoggan, Chairman of the Board of the Suzuki Foundation and founder
of the sleazy, squalid, web site Desmogblog, says the real issue is
the agenda of the people who stole the files. It’s an agenda Hoggan, a
professional spinner, and the biased mainstream media would not
recognize or understand; a desire for openness and the truth.