Dan Weiss from the Center for American Progress seems to have more than a little trouble with this interview. I wonder why they didn’t ask Joe Romm to be on?
Left to right: Michaels and Weiss
Here’s the video description as posted on YouTube:
Hackers broke into thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week and uncovered the global warming conspiracy.
Stuart Varney interviews scientist Pat Michaels, with the CATO institute, who was the target of physical threat from Climate Scientist Ben [Santer]. He also DESTROYS Dan Weiss, from the Center for American Progress.
Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.
Here’s the video:
Could Dan Weiss have acted any more desperate?
And could he have played on people’s guilt more by saying the word ‘pollution’ just one more time?
Which life boat is he going to get in to as his manipulation by guilt, opp, I mean manmade co2 induced global warming ship goes down? The “plastics is worse for the environment than we thought” life boat?
If in doubt blame Bush? Its only a matter of time before the leftists start blaming Bush for the global warming charade, a default position of leftists both in the UK and across the pond is ‘if in doubt sling mud at the other guy’.
Wiess knows full well that the emails are a catastrophic blow to the entire credibility of the ‘science’ behind AAM and that is why he will not and indeed cannot explore their content.
BTW “Russian hackers” huuuh? Does Weiss know something that we dont and why is he so sure that that Russian hackers stole this data from the CRU mainframe?
It should be noted that the data was in the hands of the UK national broadcaster the BBC for weeks before it became available on the net, does it seem likely that Russian hackers would steal this data and then hand it to the BBC who then kept it secret for weeks until the hackers decided to post it elsewhere?
It looks like Weiss is reading from an old script now made obsolete by the fact that it may well have been an inside job, a whistle blower who handed the evidence to what they thought was an impartial reporter of the truth when in fact the BBC hid the data because they are so deeply implicated in the scandal.
I hope Weiss is further examined when the source is revealed.
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world’s leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said he was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of his article “Whatever Happened To Global Warming?”. I remember this article was also covered on WUWT.
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures. It also presented the arguments of skeptics who believe natural cycles control temperature and the counter-arguments of those who think it’s man’s actions which are warming the planet.
The leaked files – which show 4,000 documents which have allegedly been sent by scientists over the past 13 years – were apparently taken from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. They were then uploaded on to a Russian server before being published on a blog called Air Vent.
Hudson doesn’t explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long, but said: “I do intend to write a blog regarding the CRU being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.”
A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.”
We must not let this rest for one moment. It is indeed an outrage that the BBC & the MSM have allowed this to slide under the radar, although the Beeb did mention it online, but of course with plenty of caveats. Channel 4 News did at least cover it, although how many watch this channel for news at the time it goes out I don’t know, with many if the crappy soaps being screened at that time. We must keep up the pressure, there are one or two journos out there who are sceptical who might be able to run with it.
UEA have put out a press release that was as bland as could be, & did not address any of the topics/questions raised within the emails – sub judice etc I suspect they’ll play that routine as long as they can. Such a press release would have covered any topic/subject being studied at the university so was in fact meaningless, probably a stock PR release that they have a “policy” about should such an occurrence take place. All major & minor institutions have to have such policies by default in the UK, they “must” have a policy statement about everything & anything, whether it concerns them or not. The interesting thing not addressed by anyone as far as I can tell, is that was this a hacking issue, or was it indeed a leak issue, which if I were Jones et al I would be very worried about! Tell me you experts on computing (I can turn mine on & that’s about it), how easy is it to hack into a computer as I am sure it is very unlike those wonderful Hollywood versions, or is it easier to leak this stuff & cover your tracks without a trace? Perhaps something like pushing the “leak” side of things might set the cat amongst the pigeons, with them wondering who it might be in their midst at the Comedy Research Unit!
BTW & OT I am still awaiting Richard Black’s report on the Climate Fools Conference held at Imperial College, London & hosted by Piers Corbyn on 28th October. Any joy anyone? He was there & was very respectfully (although not the BBC itself) pointed out to the audience by Mr Corbyn, & challenged him to put Weatheraction’s winter forecast into a box along with the Met Office’s forecast, to be opened in the Spring for comparison. Poor fellow he looked rather embarrassed & sullen about the limelight, at least he appeared to ackonwledge the challenge.
H T-G to you Colonials!
Gene Nemetz 00:23:28
Yup, I’m with you.
Hands up all those who have been to the Russian site – OK, put your hands down if you can’t read Russian – Huh huh, what is the site for?
It is a small web-mail site, that is now offering a speed of 64 kbytes to all subscribers at no extra charge! Wow.
Not exactly the sort of site that would have sophisticated hacking capability, I would say.
But it is the sort of site that you could do an anonymous FTP upload to, if you didn’t mind how long it took to get there. A sort of electronic dead-letter drop.
All supposition, of course 😉
But however the data got out, it would not have been Russian hackers – they cover their tracks.
Mind you, it might have been the Chinese trying to make the Russians look bad …
Varney shouldn’t have interrupted so much. That’s reprehensible interviewing. If he’d been more au courant in this affair, he’d have been able to say, after giving Weiss his turn to speak, “But some of the participants have conceded the authenticity of the e-mails, and none of them have disputed the authenticity of the most-quoted and damaging e-mails. What do you say to that?”
Dan Weiss, global cooling denier. Here in the UK we think Paxman gives a hard interview but compared to some of the US anchors, he’s a sheep!
This may be premature, but all of a sudden, mails for Paul Hudson, the Climate Correspondent at the BBC (the chap who wrote their “whatever happened to global warming) story a few weeks back have started bouncing.
I hope it’s just a mail server problem……
Stuart Varney interviews scientist Pat Michaels, with the CATO institute, who was the target of physical threat from Climate Scientist Ben [Santer]. He also DESTROYS Dan Weiss, from the Center for American Progress.
Yeah i have to disagree….Stuart was not all the good and Dan seemed to destroy himself.
Pat did a good job. I wish he would have shrugged off the “beating” email more forcibly. I think it is obviously a joke. Still his defection of the threat by pointing out that it demonstrated a thin skin among the email authors was nice. Perhaps Fox News should give Pat the show.
I think no one of the AGW hysterians is realy hysteric, because they all want that the globe is (should) warming up.
They are not happy about a break like the last decade, no it is a “travesty”.
As i told at the very beginning in the 90`s, it never was about climate or temperature itselfs, it was allways about controlling others and big money.
i hope this “watergate” will stop in the next year and serios scientists like lindzen come back to tell us the scientific basics of the climate system.
Copenhagen should be the last money trashing operation by this criminals:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2gy8w9v.jpg
Dan Weiss’ appeal to authority – no credibility – what a clown – to a UK citizen, who is this clown?
He is a Fellow, or what ever you call em, to a progressive think tank. He is like a counter to Pat Michaels who is a Fellow with CATO which is a libertarian think tank.
I assume both of them focus their think tank work on environmental policy.
Funny how Weiss forgot to mention the threat of hurricanes.
Oh but wait a minute, hurricanes are at a 30 year low!
I pity the poor souls who continue to believe charlatans like Weiss.
Massive CRU Data Fraud Can’t Derail the Global Warming Gravy Train
China sets a carbon target for 2020
China has made a commitment to restraining the rise in its “greenhouse gas” emissions, announcing that it had set a target for reducing its carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020. China’s foreign ministry also announced that Wen Jiabao, premier, would attend the Copenhagen talks. China has not yet set a target date for its carbon emissions to peak, although there has been speculation in recent days that Chinese negotiators will make such a commitment at Copenhagen.
note: The “carbon intensity” target means reducing the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output, and is not the same as actually cutting emissions.
President Hu Jintao had said at the UN climate change conference in September that China would adopt a carbon intensity target, although he didn’t provide specific details at the time. Beijing said it would reduce carbon intensity from the 2005 level, although the target is a domestic policy goal rather than a binding international commitment.
China’s economy will be double in size by 2020 at current growth rates and its emissions will be considerably higher even if it meets the new target.
China’s announcement came a day after the White House said President Obama would attend the early stages of the Copenhagen meeting and that the US intended to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050.
If in 10 years time or less AGW is thouroughly discredited what will people make of all these alarmists. What if in fact we are actually heading for a mini ice age and scientist warn of an impending mini iceage which could lead to food shortages? How many politicians / scientists are going to put their careers on the line over another scare? How many members of the public are going to listen to the new scare?
Many people could die because we waisted time and money fighting the wrong cause!!!
Correction
“….people make of all these alarmists?”
This was the best interview that I’ve seen on Fox since they interviewed Dr. Korvorkian a few months back (short link to my article on that interview http://wp.me/ps3dI-FY). It’s rare quality journalism from Fox. I hope they keep it up and learn that journalism is fair and balanced to the FACTS and not balanced to be equally fair to all points of view or skewed towards Fox’s political point of view. Of course the trouble is finding out what the facts actually are – and getting one’s own point of view and politics out of the way – as we know all too well.
My article on the above interview: http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/call-for-resignation-of-phil-jones-michael-mann-et-al.
Here in the UK anyone old enough will remember, during the 1950’s and 60’s, every High Street in the land had its Sandwich-board Sage pronouncing ‘The end of the world is nigh!’ Some were even bold (or stupid) enough to give the precise date when Armageddon would occur.
Most rational and reasonable folk consigned these people to the realms of psychedelic fantasy and history has supported this sensible assessment. Despite all the hype and hysteria promulgated by the AGW Alarmists, history will prove them to be the modern Sandwich-board Sages and show we are right to ignore their frenzied screeching.
Dan Weiss (whoever he is) is a present day Sandwich-board Sage….I haven’t laughed so much in ages!
I think it is telling the concern of the warmists by who they are trotting out to discuss the issue. Poor Dan Wiess, I guess he did the best he could. Ed Begley Jr. got his hat handed to himself too by Stuart on Monday. If this is the best they can do, it must be because any serious players are hiding in the weeds.
As for the threat to Pat Michaels of getting the crap beaten out of him, I wish he would have used the saying I used in Jr. High when last I was so threatened,” He better pack a lunch”
Article: Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
You seem to have this entirely wrong. The ‘decline’ doesn’t refer to temperatures at all, but to wood density –
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
In this letter to Nature in 1998, Briffa et al state:
When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere.
Seems reasonable. However, they observe that this coherence has been declining over the last few decades –
During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.
So the point here is that whilst temperatures *have* been rising over the last half century, wood density has not, so wood density doesn’t accurately reflect temperature for this period. There doesn’t seem to be any problem here. If you observe that your proxy breaks down after a certain point then of course you would not use that data as it would be invalid. This doesn’t suggest any ‘collusion’ to ‘manipulate data’, and it certainly has nothing to say about rising global temperatures – it’s just good science.
This Weiss guy reminds me of Robert Kennedy Jr.! All bluster, no substance! Didn’t quite have that “I took mind altering drugs for years” look though!
For all thsoe of you you have a problem with the BBCs coverage of global warming (as I do), can I recommend Mike Post ‘s comments on Tips and Notes to WUWT (13:23:33) and (13:39:07) where he explains how it was a policy decision not to give equal weight to sceptical views.
It is outrageous, in my view, especially as it’s partly my money that is paying for it (the BBC, that is).
Am I missing something, or did Varney fail to make the key point:
The “science” of AGW depends on the temperature record – instrument and paleo. The emails seem to provide evidence that this temperature record has been systematically manipulated. If these data have been corrupted, how can the “science”, at least that part of it that depends on the temperature record, still be considered valid? Without demonstrable, unprecidented long-term rise in global temperature, the physics of how CO2 molecules behave in the atmosphere becomes pretty boring to most people.
Wow…..Weiss was like a little screaming 4-ear-old.
Pathetic.
Exactly the type of sophistry that people of his ilk try to use…one last ditch effort of abandoning ship….the Great Ship AGW.
Nah….he will never abandon….it is obvious his brainwashed state has him mentally “bolted” to the deck, even after it begins to disappear beneath the waves.
This nonsensical tirade is right up there with Waxman’s waxing stupid about the North Pole evaporating.
Cue Charlie Brown laugh: Hahahahahahaha.
Happy Thanksgiving Anthony and Mods, and all you fellow USA’ers out there, and everyone else have a great day/night.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
What a let down. That Weiss guy showing signs of panic and refusing to even deal with the issues in the emails, instead preferring to reel of lists of “tractor stats” re climate change.
They never even got into the code comments that completely undermine every single one of his climate alarm assertions.
He claimed that it has warmed. How can he know that if the data has been so massively fudged? The fact is, that if we cannot state with certainty what the earlier temperatures were, to a fine degree of accuracy, and the modern temperature record has been altered (as they admit), then how can we know what direction the temperature has been going in?
We no longer have a reliable record for temperature as there has been a global conspiracy to alter the record to show increased warming.
The fact is that we cannot rely on any temperature reconstruction record by CRU.
CORRECTION “4-year-old”