CBS evening news finally, after over two weeks, gets around to covering Climategate. Most interestingly, they have a short clip of an interview with Kevin Trenberth. Dr. Trenberth, as many recall said this in one of the CRU emails:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Look at what Dr. Trenberth adds now:
h/t to WUWT reader LiamIam
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You have to laugh at the CBS effort. They took a deep breath and uttered those words so abhored by all alarmists: “manipulate”, “global warming”, “exist”, “didn’t”, even though they made sure that these were not their own words – Heavens no. These are the words “some sketpics” have said after reading emails known as “Climategate.”
The couple of minutes masquerading as investigative journalism that followed was scarcely worth the time of the camera crew, let alone the news anchor. Something about “cherry picking” and “out of context”. I can’t honestly remember what was said. But it doesn’t matter anyway. CBS have now fulfilled their contractual obligation to their viewers. They have done all that is demanded to uncover the truth. Whatever happens now or in the future, they can brush off this old tape and say, look of course we covered climategate, it’s all here.
Range-o-Dente (09:32:37) :
… in my country, Portugal, except for a couple references in minor newspaper web sites nothing happens. Of course, the blogs are on fire.
The internet is where the real media is. The reason blogs are on fire is because people know they are only getting bias in other places.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this fight yet.
I one corner Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
In the other corner Fraser Nelson, political editor of The Spectator.
…Don’t forget to click on this one too!
Ads by Google
Climategate Hoax
Confused About What It Means? Don’t Be! Get the Climate Facts.
http://www.FightCleanEnergySmears.org
You’ll find this gem, which includes a link to Real Climate as an authoritative source:
http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/hacked_email_ed_note_FINAL_rev01__3%20December%202009_.pdf
michael hogan (09:35:31) :
she was wrong however that India and China have announced “cuts” to their emissions. They have only announced non-binding limits on their future emissions increases.
She was wrong also, at this point, to say the emails were “hacked”. Nobody knows, publicly anyway, at this point if they were hacked, leaked, released in accordance with some regulation, etc.
But there are very few reporters actually doing their job correctly and getting things 100% right.
Copenhagen MUST take place, because they care.
Read Bishop Hill “Climate of fear” on trying to get someone to review his book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/6/climate-of-fear.html
Well known writers wont touch it for fear of losing their livelihoods.
“..I now live in a country where people are afraid to state their opinions on a scientific question. They will have their livelihoods taken away from them if they do.
I sometimes have to pinch myself to ensure that this really is happening and I’m not just living in a bad dream.”
JAN (09:38:35) :
Interesting that Trenberth…
I may be seeing things, but it seems Kevin Trenberth has the look of a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
The tone of that ‘Dictation’ is quite clear: They want to portray Climate-gate as an attack made up by skeptics. It examines nothing, and declares everything.
Not even a hint of journalism.
Why am I not surprised?
The announcer’s facial expression says it all. “How dare they question”.
Isn’t that the journalists job?
Magnus (11:20:13) :
Note the projection by Ward who accuses the “skeptics” of trying to push a political agenda, when it is the warmers who pushing the political agenda, and the skeptics trying to stop it.
Ward also uses redirection to another (non)-issue.
Ward is a very skilled propagandist.
Mark (09:44:45) :
They just won`t give it up will.
Prepare for mass civil unrest when temp`s drop and food production is hit, why can`t these idiots admit they have gotten it wrong?
Reply
Don’t worry Mark, Rep. Waxman of Cap and Trade fame has the food issue covered with his food safety enhancement bill, -why is the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee sponsoring a food bill?? The new regulations are designed to force many farmers out of business.
There will be a new $500/yr registation fee and regulations covering anything to do with food. You can forget about getting a slice of granny’s pie at the church supper, but they already have cracked down on that. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932034907406927.html
“The Secretary shall establish by regulation science-based standards for the safe growing, harvesting, processing, packing, sorting, transporting, and holding of raw agricultural commodities”
sounds like all aspects of farming including gardening? Depends on how the local bureaucrats interpret “shall take into consideration, consistent with ensuring enforceable public health protection, the impact on small-scale and diversified farms”
The giving away of raw milk products to family members has already been interpreted as coming under the government’s jurisdiction so lord knows how they will twist this phrase.
June 10 version of the bill http://www.ftcldf.org/news/amd_pallone_061009-hr2749_ans.pdf
Kissinger: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”
Gues Waxman took old Harry at his word
I guess the bottom line is that we can’t trust any of these inveterate liars, who have been practicing their craft for years. They know that if they sound confident, they will appear to the public as if they are telling the truth, when they are not, What does it matter to them when the truth is told, and they can brush it aside as if it were mere speculation? They are no longer embarrassed by the real truth, because they no longer know what truth is.
Leon Brozyna (10:06:58) :
If there was any spirit of journalism surviving at CBS, they’d pull out all the stops….;
You will only find that on the internet.
It must be getting rough out there in the media any pro-warmist attempting any level of moderation…
Andy Revkin is getting into trouble for being a naughty boy for even so much as mentioning the prostitutes of Copenhagen – an indication that he is no longer trust-worthy.
Apparently Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois responded with an email saying “I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.”
See full email here:
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php
it just pains me to know that all of his emails were typed with two fingers.
I would like to see Jake Tapper of ABC ask Robert Gibbs about ClimateGate. He has made Robert Gibbs uncomfortable on other topics.
Is CBS unable to uncover one scientist to explain which decline was being hid?
Any questions why the MSM has been so quiet ?
Magnus (11:20:13)
Excellent find! This should be jumped to its own feature on WUWT.
Well done! What a jerk is Ward, with his typical ad hominem and obfuscation…. “just wait for the enquiry results” (i.e. don’t upset Copenhagen!)
Hypocrites and liars, the lot of them.
Trenberth isn’t (yet at least) one of the ‘bad guys’. I’ll be interested to see how he furthers his research on natural climate variations over the next decade…
While “hide” certainly raises suspicions, relentlessly misrepresenting “the decline” is a counterproductive pursuit.
Trenberth was right a few weeks ago when he accurately predicted that this would backfire. As a nonalarmist I am not pleased with deniers whose actions drive powerful backlashes. We don’t yet know the fallout, but I think it’s a wise bet that only extremists will benefit …and I think it is worthwhile to note who is backing both alarmist & denialist extremists.
The foreshadowing is starting to clear up: Extremists at both ends of the spectrum share common goals and will (given the chance) leave sensible, non-extremist folks of the centre out in the cold. It’s a deceptive horseshoe match made in h*ll.
Boy, enough of the boring politics. We need to get back to pursuing understanding of natural climate variations – i.e. the shared goal of sensible non-extremists. This is the common ground upon which truth can be built (so expect more bombing of this area by extremists from both ends).
Magnus (11:20:13) :
I one corner Bob Ward
Bob Ward, the usual abrasive alarmist using inflammatory language like “witch-hunt” and telling people to “shut up”.
Thank you, Ed Scott. The quadrant article for which you provided a link confirms a line of thought that started in my mind a couple of years ago. It would seem to utterly falsify AGW. If it can be shown that the oceans have warmed and that a slightly warmer atmosphere cannot have caused it (an atmosphere warmed by an increase in CO2 concentration) then AGW has a rather big problem, doesn’t it?
BernieL (12:03:08) :
Is this story about Revkin really real?
Trenberth’s comment in a recent E-mail: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
He seems to be saying that there is no warming, but there must be warming, so the measurements must be wrong. Clearly it has been cooler this last year, at least in the northern hemisphere – this by itself does not invalidate the idea of AGW. As they say, that’s weather, not climate. But the predicted global warming as stalled for something like 5-8 years. One year, may be weather, but 8 years IS climate.
My question is this: Did the climate models that the various IPCC contributors use predict this interruption of global warming? I don’t remember the proponents of AGW saying back in 2001 “be warned, global warming will slow to a halt for about a decade, and then resume stronger than ever”. Did anyone publicly (or even privately) say such a thing? I don’t think anyone did. And if their models did not predict such a trend…………………of what value are those models? What is the predictive power of a model that can only predict the past, but not the future?
(A note to the moderator: I neglected to check the previous submission for spelling errors – please substitute this comment for the previous one. Thankyou.)
Paul Vaughan (12:44:22) :
Because the warmists chose to depart from the path of science and go political, the backlash of one extreme political stunt is the polar opposite.
That’s just the way it works.
The public by now is divided into 3 camps
1.) Fully aware of how deceitful AGW is or
2.) Never believed the government is telling the truth anyway or
3.) Sees AGW as a vehicle for thier Earth-saving dreams, never stopping to question the direction the vehicle is travelling.
News reporting that paints Climate-gate as a bunch of misquoted smiling scientists in tow with the loving Government dumps 2/3 of the popular opinon off in the 1st 10 seconds.
Any questions as to why political backlash is so harsh?