Gore’s web crusaders can’t handle a dissenting opinion

click for the entire WSJ story

People send me stuff. Below, there’s an email being circulated today by Gore’s activists. They are upset that the Wall Street Journal had the audacity to print a dissenting opinion by Climate Scientist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels. I particularly liked this passage from Dr. Michael’s essay:

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”

No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years.

Below, Gore’s people are having a conniption fit, “demanding the WSJ cover the facts about climate science“. Um, they did, just facts you don’t like. Even though most MSM just passed on the Muir-Russell findings without as much as a question, here we have Gore’s followers trying to silence the lone dissenting MSM voice in the USA. I notice they haven’t demanded that the Guardian retract Fred Pearce’s story.

So yes, let’s all send in letters to the Wall Street Journal. You can even use Gore’s own handy online tool to do it (complete with suggested talking points) or you can think for yourself and write a letter the old fashioned way, using your own brain.  To contact the staff of the Journal’s Editorial page, please send an e-mail to wsj.ltrs@wsj.com. Short and to the point letters of 150 words or less get preference. The shorter the better.

It shouldn’t be too hard for WUWT readers to get a few more letters published than those being pushed by Gore’s climateprotect.org  As seen in the traffic plot below, they got a heckuva climategate bump didn’t they? Heh. It makes you realize what a minority they really are if some unfunded nobody like me can kick traffic butt against Gore’s millions:

click for live stats - current world traffic rank for climateprotect is 1,195,694, world traffic rank for WUWT is: 18,159. A lower number means more traffic. In the graph above, a higher number is better

The letter from Gore’s followers is presented in it’s entirety and unaltered below, all boldings are theirs.- Anthony


Climate Protection Action Fund

Friend,

Last week, a third independent investigation exonerated the climate scientists whose emails were hacked last fall — finding the attacks lacked foundation. That’s right: Three full, independent reviews have found no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists — and most importantly, affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change.

So you might think that any reputable media outlet would feel compelled to set the record straight. But you’d be wrong.

In particular, the Wall Street Journal has published more than 30 editorials and op-eds on climate change since November of 2009. All took the stance that climate science was unreliable, dishonest or questionable — or minimally unimportant. And unbelievably, just today, the Journal published another op-ed about the reviews, calling them a “whitewash” by “global warming alarmists.”

Send a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page demanding that they set the record straight on climate change science.

It’s vital that we receive balanced coverage from all of the media, and the Journal‘s actions matter. As Congress works to craft comprehensive policies to address our energy and climate crises, public understanding of this issue is more important than ever before.

A news outlet like the Wall Street Journal relies on its reputation as a balanced, unbiased news source. With your help, we can convince the Journal editorial page to give equal space to the fact that climate scientists have been exonerated and their findings remain affirmed.

Demand that the Wall Street Journal cover the facts about climate science.

Few news outlets in the U.S. are as well regarded and widely read among opinion makers and politicians as the Wall Street Journal. It has a responsibility to its readers and the American public to be fair and accurate on one of the most important issues of our time.

Balanced media coverage today won’t give back the precious time we’ve lost defending scientific facts that should not have been in question. But perhaps it will remind our media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, of their responsibility to the American people.

Thank you,

Maggie L. Fox
President and CEO
Alliance for Climate Protection

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “Gore’s web crusaders can’t handle a dissenting opinion

  1. One would think that after all the recent flap, Gore would just slink away. Ah, well, far be it from us to force him to. Besides, he does a better job of of dragging himself through the oil slick than we ever could.

    The net effect is that MSNBC poll is now at 38.5% pro and 61.5% con. Given time, these guys are their own worst enemies.

  2. Only glitch is that if you follow the link and write to the W$J, you also enroll to receive the e-mailings of the “Alliance for Climate Protection”, whomever they might be.
    Is there a more productive way to provide feedback?

    [Reply: Email the WSJ direct: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com ~dbs, mod.]

  3. “Climate Protection” is such a non-sense name. Are they trying to protect climate, which is non-sensical, or get protection from climate, which makes them appear to be an umbrella or raincoat advocacy group.

  4. What a laugher. The independent reviews are as independent as the IPCC’s science was a consensus.

    Do the AGWers really believe if they repeat something enough times that it automatically comes true? Maybe they should try this:

    “There’s no place like home … there’s no place like home … there’s no place like home …”

  5. I’m expecting a retraction anytime soon…..or a correction, or a clarification……or just a plain refusal to print any opinions dissenting from the views of the AGW crowd in general……I’ve seen other papers cave. Maybe the WSJ can withstand the brow beating, but my sense is that any integrity MSM used to purport is ancient history. Even the op-ed space, they will conform or simply not be allowed to write. Excuse me while I don’t hold my breath for a rebuttal to the heavy hand of the AGW crew, even from an establishment such as the WSJ. I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve lost faith in journalistic integrity long ago.

  6. Letter sent, light up their inbox and let them know that there are many readers and possible customers that appreciate honesty and balanced reporting!!!!

  7. Anthony, be sure to change taxi cabs often & take circuitous routes to and from the airport and office!! Maybe even hire a double!

    Hah!! Thanks for posting the WSJ editorial, I enjoyed it when it first surfaced and hoped it would show up on your blog. Michaels does a very good job of pointing out the obvious flaws of the many whitewash reports.

  8. Okay, I know this is weird, but for some reason the AfCP’s little diatribe there sounds like something from Star Trek. It’s like something a giant skulled alien would pronounce to his people: “Amazingly, the Earthmen insist our planet is not the only one in the galaxy, we must ignore these Earthmen and continue filling our atmosphere with toxic sludge”…

    By the way… balanced media? Really? So it’s only balanced when it’s saying what WE want it to say, otherwise it’s biased? Oh wait… there is a “consensus” among media outlets, right?

  9. Supportive email sent to the WSJ. I’m also challenging Michael Hawthorne at the Chicago Tribune for his use of the term “climate-change pollution” supposedly sanctified by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 “and other heat-trapping gasescan be regulated as air pollution.” As related to the new Prairie State coal plant in southern Illinois. Enough to gag a maggot.

  10. RK,
    I think its “Climate Protection” in the sense that Luigi and the boys “protect” local businesses in gangster films.

  11. James:

    If I recall correctly, the WSJ has had a history of being rather impervious to the taunts of the likes of Al.

    I don’t expect a retraction ever, especially since they reported the truth, regardless of whether they referred to it as a “whitewash” and that they didn’t mention the so-called “affirmation”, which given what they did report, holds less water than a thimble; and that’s being generous.

  12. From [edit] Gore Flakes
    666 Pennsylvania Ave
    Washington, DC 22301
    To [edit] The Wall Street Journal’s

    NOTE: Each recipient will only see his/her own email address.
    Subject [edit] Gore’s Form Letter to Harrass You
    Message [edit] I just thought I’d put a bit of his bandwidth to harmless use CONGRATULATING YOU FOR A CRITICAL LOOK at the global warming fraud and coverup.

    I remember the WSJ reported the outcome of these investigations over a month ago in an article reassuring carbon traders that all would be well.

    You know they’ll be back for an attack at Xmas, right?

    They’ve really done a job on the economy for the next decade.

    Anything you can do to unwind that fate, or are we locked into it now?

  13. From the comments at the WSJ post:

    “According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.” –Jay Leno

  14. I noticed that the Alliance for Climate Protection has Joseph Stiglitz listed on their board members page:
    http://www.climateprotect.org/about/board-members/

    Here’s Joseph Stiglitz listed on a Socialist International web site:
    The Commission, established by the Socialist International Presidium at its meeting at the United Nations, New York, at the end of September, brings together political leaders, ministers and experts from all continents, and its members include: Professor Joseph Stiglitz from the United States, Nobel laureate and Chair of the Commission;
    http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1958

    You can also find Gordon Brown listed on SocialistInternational. Carol Browner has also been listed on their web page in the past…

    Why are these socialists so involved with AGW?

  15. Anthony,
    Great article! Here’s another good article from the “Left” called;

    An Open Mind About Climate
    By EUGENE ROBINSON

    It was posted today at IBD here:
    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/539847/201007091902/An-Open-Mind-About-Climate.aspx

    Mr. Robinson really left himself open and read the comments…Wow, did He get “Hammered”! You have to sign up to comment!

    Also Popular Science Magazine came out with a “dosie” with Rebecca Boyle spouting off! Again, you need to read the responses…Totally amazing how blantant the article was and the responses were at the most “against” the article…It’s called:

    Six Quiet Climate Villians: Brick Tamland, James Inhofe And Cows! It’s posted at:
    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2675.last

    The Alarmists are “trying” to fight back but it’s amazing how little they represent “anything” of value! Just a bunch of accusations… Running scared, maybe but we have a long way to go…

  16. And the CAW community has the guts to claim skeptics are astroturf insincere puppets.
    What a sad pathetic joke Gore and pals are.

  17. It’s worse than you think. The Seattle Times is running idiodic articles while banning comments from “skeptics”/”deniers” and all common sense people. All dissent is being banned while abusive One World lefties are given free reign to suggest people thinning is a good, reasonable thing.

    How do I stop this railroad while remaining a peaceful, tolerant American?

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012338264_acidification13m.html

  18. From the ACP letter: “…and most importantly, affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change.”

    Now excuse me if I’ve got it wrong, but none of three panels actually got into the science.

    From the Oxburgh report: “2. The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct.”

    The Muir Russell review said in its introduction: “5. In response [to the emails publication], the UEA commissioned two inquiries. The first led by Lord Oxburgh, into the science being undertaken at CRU, has already reported. This document is the report of the second inquiry … which examines the conduct of the scientists involved.”

    The parliamentary report also indicated that the Oxburgh committee was to appraise the science: “10. Alongside the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review [Muir Russell], UEA decided on a separate scientific assessment of CRU’s key scientific publications; an external reappraisal of the science itself.” And “137. … It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel [Oxburgh’s] to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.”

    So two of the three panels deferred to Oxburgh on the science, and Oxburgh punted. And yet the claim is made that these three inquiries “affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change.” One can argue for or against the soundness of the methods and conclusions of the various reviews, but their conclusions can in no way be stretched into an affirmation of the science.

  19. Based on artwest’s comment, I think we need to call the AGW business a “climate protection racket”.

  20. “its vital that we receive balanced coverage from ALL of the media”

    Now do they mean by ‘balanced’?
    To normal people that would mean giving equal weight to each argument and equal space for both sides to put their case.
    To the AGW alarmist believer however the word ‘balanced’ means allowing only one side to air its views and opinions while denying airtime to dissidents. They also require it seems an editorial veto on the output of all of the media, jealously guarding their corporate monopoly of the MSM.
    All sounds very ‘Stalinist’ doesnt it? A narrative that cannot tolerate or withstand public critical analysis must stand on very shaky foundations indeed.
    A consensus built on the crushing of dissent and sceptisism, a narrative built on the desire to poison political enemies using smears and dirty tricks. The hysterical tone however fills me with some hope, the AGW cult is running scared, I smell real fear now. Desperate believers engaging in desperate behaviour, the jig is up for them if they cannot control their traditional territory and unless the cult can come with some brutal method of suppression then the trickle of critical stories will become a flood.
    The mega rich would be carbon traders are running the show and once they realise that the CT scam aint gonna fly and the longed for tsunami of money aint coming their way then they will desert the cause and then the AGW cause will be exposed for what they truly are, they are a perfect representation of the ‘wizzard behind the curtain’.

  21. As an investigator there are simply a set of basic questions that you ask about the topics in question. The Muir report didn’t even satisfy the very basic criteria of an impartial investigation. They didn’t even address the fundamental destruction of data or communications… this goes to the heart of science in general… would you trust these men if they choose to just dump your financial data so they you couldn’t find out just what it was they spent or how it might affect you?

    I know some good interrogation books I could recommend they use…. if they know how to read….

  22. I just requested that the WSJ look into why the basic science and data questions were never investigated and who set the investigative guidelines which excluded those who simply dissent or were denied access to data and methods used…

    a little poke at the peer review by circle jerk….. <(I hope I didn't go out of bounds with this)

  23. ROTFLMAO!

    “It’s vital that we receive balanced coverage from all of the media”

    This is so silly that it could be from a Monte Python skit.

  24. Since the WSJ was bought out by ultra-conservative Murdoch, I don’t think that there is going to be any flinching by attacks from the likes of Gore and compadre’s. On the other hand they sometimes have to be reckoned with for their own methods of distortion and non-reporting (e.g. the poor coverage of the Gulf Oil leak effects on the southern coastline).

  25. Well deserved derision aside, the crux lies in policy:

    It doesn’t matter to Gore how many media outlets support him so long as draconian environmental laws and treaties are not in place. If they were, he’d simply ignore the WSJ.

  26. My two cents:

    It’s nice to see that Lord Soros has stirred his trolls to rise out of the earth to swarm the WSJ. Too bad the game is up. No one believes the meme anymore. No one trusts the scientists/advocates, the crazed sex poodle,or the computer models over historical observation, basic physics and grade 12 mathematics. It’s a rare case when BS does not baffle brains.

    Hopefully these trolls will soon return to the earth’s core to try and sharpen the two remaining prongs of their trident of destruction—ocean acidification and population control (aka eugenics). For those choosing to stay above ground they may want to consider moving closer to the equator or stocking up on firewood because it’s about to get cold. Real cold. For some time.

    For WSJ readers, you may want to look at going long on orange juice, fuel oil, coffee and wheat futures.
    So, protest away, dear trolls, and raise your cries to the still night air. No one is listening. No one cares.

  27. the CAGW crowd prefer editorials such as:

    NYT Editorial: A Climate Change Corrective
    Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible….
    Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academy’s report, and Wednesday’s debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html

    no doubt this will be more credible!

    12 July: BBC: Global population study launched by Royal Society
    It is led by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Human Genome Project fame…
    The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity…
    Jonathon Porritt, founder and director of the UK think tank Forum for the Future and a member of the Royal Society’s working group, suggested the review could shed some objective light on the issues under dispute….
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10578484.stm

    2007 Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists
    This consensus document was prepared under the auspices of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
    The 2007 Bali Climate Declaration has been signed by the following scientists
    (signatories) Dr. John Sulston UK
    (along with Schneider, Trenberth and other guilty parties)
    http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Bali.html

  28. One Voice is all it takes. Anthony, you are officially dangerous, to Al’s cause!! Congrates are in order!!

  29. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7928778
    The “professional-looking” package was reportedly filled with nails and tacks and featured batteries and wires, a source involved in the investigation was quoted as saying.

    Another neighbour said the box contained a note which read “thank you” with the woman’s name misspelt.

    The victim is in a stable condition after undergoing surgery on Saturday.

    Some media reports have suggested the woman may have been targeted because she is married to an oil executive.

    =================================

    Greenpeace ‘we know where you live’
    too important for T&N

  30. Thanks for the link. I sent a rather lengthy dissection Michaels claims to the WSJ. Wasn’t going to do it, although I did get the email, but you inspired me.

    REPLY: Always happy to help -A

  31. And, oh yeah, I ignored the talking points. If I can’t add anything beyond talking points, my view is not worth hearing.

  32. My husband got one of these today. I was about to forward it to you, but I see you got your copy. These people troll all the blogs, censor comments on You Tube, send spam e-mails, stop you on the street, put fliers on your windshield, and call constantly on the phone, yet still claim that they are the ones being picked on. It’s like dealing with a bunch of whining tweenagers.

  33. @artwest says:
    July 12, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    RK, I think its “Climate Protection” in the sense that Luigi and the boys “protect” local businesses in gangster films.

    It maybe closer than you think. Look at how greenpeace & co. are getting their hand of rainforest chunks in order to “protect” it and then earn billions by carbon credits.
    Have seen such a business model already …

  34. The Gorebots say:
    “It’s vital that we receive balanced coverage from all of the media”

    ‘By ramming our one sided point of view down their throats.’

  35. kramer says:
    July 12, 2010 at 8:27 pm
    I noticed that the Alliance for Climate Protection has Joseph Stiglitz listed on their board members page:

    For a moment i thought i read Hugo Stiglitz :P

  36. The AGW lot want ‘balance’ brought to the media the same way Anakin Skywalker brought balance to the Force… dah dah dah DAH dah dah DAH dah dah….

  37. There appears an act of God trying to stop these cats in their tracks and they just won’t shut up, will they? Give it up global warming proponents, before more people have to die from your insane belief.

    The flooding, dropping temps, heavy snows and ice are classic solar minimum deepening and volcano eruption volume increase. The stuff serious change is made of. And its certainly not warming.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A

    http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010.doc

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6…#otherarticles

    Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony.

    Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrient-limited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano–climate system.

  38. “It’s vital that we receive balanced coverage from all of the media…”

    Yes, that’s right. These Gore folks are now demanding the press give BALANCED coverage…which implies both sides get an equal hearing. Am I evil if I agree with the Gore camp? This could get confusing.

    We should forward this to all the other MSM. :)

  39. This call to arms by the ‘Alliance’ speaks horrid volumes about the twisted mindset of those driving AGW and the lengths they will go to undermine people making up their own minds about AGW – ‘1984’ thoughtcrime comes to mind…

    Keep up the good work. I shall certainly be sending an email in.

  40. Here’s what I wrote to the WSJ …

    w.

    ======================

    Thank you for the trenchant piece on Climategate by Pat Michaels. None of the Climategate inquiries were complete, in-depth, or professionally done. All were tainted by the presence of friends or colleagues on the inquiry boards.

    As Steve McIntyre details, in the most recent case, the Muir Russell panel decided that they couldn’t or wouldn’t do the job that they were assigned, so they wanted to hire an “independent” investigator to read the emails. But perhaps they couldn’t find one, so they took the one recommended by UAE …

    The April 22 meeting reports that UEA has now agreed to make contact with a forensic analyst:

    It was noted that the UEA has agreed to the proposal that they should make contact with a trusted, independent, forensic analyst, to take this work forward. The Review Team agreed to facilitate the initial contacts. Action JN

    The April 28 minutes report that an analyst has been engaged by UEA – this is now 5 months from the release of the dossier.

    It was noted that a trusted, independent, forensic analyst [Peter Sommer] has been engaged by the UEA and once they are available, he will start work on examining the first set of downloaded emails from the compromised CRU server.

    They let the people being investigated hire (and pay?) the “independent” forensic analyst, and they want us to take their investigation seriously? Really?

  41. Anthony, thanks for publicising the flak the Gorbullites are firing at an MSM organ that actually publishes carefully-written and factual reports.
    I sent a supportive letter to the Editor and was pleased to do so.

  42. @Rattus Norvegicus says: July 12, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    “my view is not worth hearing”

    The first thing from you that I agree with.

  43. As the Alliance says, it is true that….
    “Three full, independent reviews have found no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists….”
    Independent? Maybe. Disinterested? Certainly not. However, to then assert that these reviews….
    “importantly, affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change….”
    ….is ludicrous. Simply wrong.
    These reviews determined whether certain scientists had done any “wrongdoing”. None of the reviews were set up to determine the robustness of the science and none did. End of story.

  44. Letter sent. Copy below:

    “Re: The Climategate Whitewash Continues

    Dear Sir/Ms.

    I applaud the WJS and Dr. Michaels for publishing this opinion piece. The WSJ is one of the few news organizations that dares to do dissent in this new age of Climate Consensus.

    Conspiracy is a strong legal word that I will not apply to this context. However, Collusion (Webster: secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose) is glaringly obvious in the CRU emails.

    Why would scientists have to collude on anything? Because by colluding to silence opposing views they hoped to create the appearance of CONSENSUS. A false one at that because if there indeed was Consensus, there would be no need to act collusively to create it in the first place.

    And why is the appearance of Consensus so important to these scientists? After all, Consensus is a sociological construct, not a scientific one. Simply, Consensus is about opinions, beliefs, judgments and sentiments, not FACTS. If something is irrefutably factually true Consensus becomes irrelevant.

    In this light then, it becomes obvious by reading the emails that the scientists therein are not in possession of irrefutable scientific facts. Otherwise, there would be no need to act collusively to create an obviously FALSE sense of Consensus.

    Keep up the great work!

    Best,

    Jose Suro”

  45. God bless all you honest people.We,the worms,are turning.”You can fool all—–etc”

  46. Alliance for Climate Protection, when reading this i see a group of kids in the back garden running around in thier dads y-fronts (tighty whiteies or tidy whiteies?) and mums kitchen curtain on there back for a cap.

    Shame there not as harmless though.

  47. Hey Al Baby!…just wait for the next Climate Gate version 2.0….new astounding features included!
    Hey, Hey, don´t cry! I didn´t mean to hurt you baby!….wanna pee?

  48. I didn’t get past “Friend,” it was just too creepy. Anytime they call you their friend you better guard your crotch.

    It is 63 degrees on my patio. Ain’t summer great!?! It’s beeee-uuu-teeful in the morning, but at noon, my dogs go into the garage and make themselves as flat as pancakes on that cool concrete, and they don’t come out til at least 2 o’clock. So I been taking their example, and finding a book to read, or just taking a nap. Dogs are smart. Viva la siesta!

    Best books I’ve read so far are “True Grit” by Charles Portis, and “The Curious Case of Sidd Finch,” by George Plimpton.

    Hope you are keeping it cool Anthony, fun blog – ta ta for now – Juanita

  49. Wall Street Journal has published more than 30 editorials and op-eds on climate change since November of 2009. All took the stance that climate science was unreliable, dishonest or questionable

  50. from the Alliance for Climate Protection piece:
    “Wall Street Journal has published more than 30 editorials and op-eds on climate change since November of 2009. All took the stance that climate science was unreliable, dishonest or questionable”
    This is a known lie as Al Gore himself co-authored an op-ed piece on June 24, 2010. WSJ really does present various sides.

  51. Letter sent to the WSJ:

    To the Editor of the Wall Street Journal:

    Re “The Climategate Whitewash Continues,” by Patrick J. Michaels (July 12th), it was refreshing to see at least one major newspaper revealing that the ‘investigators’ of the Climategate scandal are–surprise!–partisans of ‘global warming’ alarmism and trusted colleagues of the scientists accused of malfeasance.

    There is no chance that these interested parties will want to derail the gravy train of ‘climate-research’ grants, so dependent on perpetuating the completely unfounded speculation that human-produced CO2 has any significant role in Earth’s climate.

    Note that to have any hope of a letter getting published in a major newspaper, you need to include your real name, address, and phone number.

    /Mr Lynn

  52. Denis,
    I think the claim about the WSJ’s stance is specific to gore’s writing, and if so is dead-on accurate.
    Here is what I wrote:
    Dr. Michaels makes a vital point: Not one investigation of the leaked e-mails has actually met any reasonable standard of complete, thorough or credible.
    The social movement that promotes fear of global climate catastrophe is not tolerant of critical reviews, full disclosure or accountability. It is long past time to challenge this head on and to treat climate science like any other endeavor: with integrity, transparency and testability. Climate science as it currently stands meets none of those criteria.
    XXXXXXXX
    City, state

  53. Ironically, the WSJ news pages are pretty much MSM liberal. That’s why it took the news pages so long to catch on to Climategate in the first place. It’s the editorial pages that are consistently conservative (in the old-fashioned liberal/libertarian sort of way) and that’s where you’ll read the contrarian side of the global warming debate, but not in the news pages generally.

    So, whenever I write the editorial page regarding something like this I get in a little dig at the news side along the lines of: “Thanks for publishing the article; now if only you could convince the news hounds at your paper that there’s actually a story out there to report and to do so before the blogs have finished thoroughly dissecting the matter and have done all their legwork for them.”

    They’ll take the lead on reporting on financial scandals, for sure. But if it’s a political right vs. left matter, the WSJ news pages are not much better than the New York Times. Just something to be aware of. It does make it an interesting paper though, because in a weird sense that makes it quite balanced politically compared to most news outlets.

  54. Regarding the WSJ news coverage again (as opposed to their editorial coverage) here’s a few excerpts from the WSJ news coverage of the Russell Report on July 8th:

    Front page lead to the story on pp 13: “A UK probe found climate-change researchers didn’t skew science to inflate man-made global warming data, but it did find a ‘misleading’ presentation.” [Note that they utilize the ‘report supports the science’ MSM talking point.]

    Full top-of-the-page Headline (pp 13): “Report Backs Climate Data, Scolds Scientists”
    [Note that they went from “didn’t skew science” in the front page lead to the stronger “report backs climate data” in the headline of the article.]

    And the concluding paragraph (which ironically was immediately preceded by a paragraph describing how Philip Campbell resigned from the panel in February due to a clear bias demonstrated earlier): “Sir Muir Russell, the former senior British civil servant whom the university tapped to lead the panel, said in an interview Wednesday that the panel was ‘entirely independent’ and that none of its members ‘brought any agenda to it whatsoever’. [To my knowledge, the news section of the WSJ still stands by this assessment, so reserve your praise for the editorial page staff, not the news staff. Far more accurate reporting goes on right here on climate matters than you’ll ever read in the news pages of the WSJ.]

    Essentially, the reporters, Jeffrey Ball and Guy Chazan, focused only on a tendency of Jones, Mann, et al, to not be forthcoming enough when dealing with those who tended to disagree with them. One example: “But the report criticized the East Anglia climate scientists for ‘a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness’.” [Now there’s some strong language. Also, while the reporters did mention some of the accusations leveled against the climate researchers, they then quickly brushed them aside by citing conclusions of the panel.]

  55. The people at the WSJ surely know enough about marketing, astroturfing and PR campaigns by a player in the market to see through this. And their reputation depends on being not swayed by it.

    Maggie L. Fox and her friends… Reminds of FoE who start their messages to their “friends” with “Friends, …”. She will not achieve anything here.

  56. James Sexton says:
    July 12, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    I’m expecting a retraction anytime soon…..or a correction, or a clarification……or just a plain refusal to print any opinions dissenting from the views of the AGW crowd in general……I’ve seen other papers cave… Excuse me while I don’t hold my breath for a rebuttal to the heavy hand of the AGW crew, even from an establishment such as the WSJ. I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve lost faith in journalistic integrity long ago.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    James, My father in law owns a small town newspaper. He said the WSJ and the Christian Science Monitor were the only newspapers were the only newspapers he respected.

    However the news media is answerable to their advertisers, that is why as many letters from skeptics as possible is very important. If the WSJ can show the article was
    1) controversial
    2) drew comments from a fairly evenly balanced group of pro vs con AND
    3) drew lots and lots of responses
    Advertisers will be happy because they will know the article was read AND so were their ads (hopefully)

    I am off to send that e-mail now and persuade my hubby and friends to do the same.

  57. I sent off my offering to the WSJ, as follows:

    I read the climategate emails myself and I was appalled at the clear and undeniable evidence of professional misconduct by “climate scientists” at the heart of the IPCC process.

    The three UK inquiries (House of Commons, Oxburgh, Russell) were superficial and did not ask even the most basic questions they should have posed (“Did you actually delete emails as you said you were going to do?”).

    Confidence in climate science has suffered as a result of Climategate. In the long run, it will have suffered far more from superficial and biased inquiries that pretend that nothing much was wrong.

    Many scientifically literate people have now read the emails. They have observed that the inquiry reports have steered clear of the real issues. Their conclusion is that so-called climate science simply cannot be trusted and that nothing is going to change this in the foreseeable future.

    Yours truly
    Martin Ackroyd, PhD

  58. Everyone needs to catch up with the latest information. The wabett tells us there is “Quick Sand” in Greenland.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-goes-up-often-melts-down.html

    REPLY: Worse than that, look at this comment from him:

    EliRabett said…

    Look at the picture, it is going down into the ice locally, just what you get if you put a piece of metal on ice in the shining sun.
    12/7/10 8:04 PM

    Guess he doesn’t know anything about snow drifts/accum. – Anthony

  59. kramer says:
    July 12, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    You can also find Gordon Brown listed on SocialistInternational. Carol Browner has also been listed on their web page in the past…

    Why are these socialists so involved with AGW?
    _____________________________________________________________________
    You have hit on the critical question:

    Why is CAGW being pushed so hard despite all the evidence, despite Climategate and IPCCgate, why the whitewashes and media silence? Without knowing the actual shape of the monster we are fighting we are fighting on their chosen battlefield and therefore are at a disadvantage.

    To answer your question:
    CAGW is the sheepherding dog used to push the world’s masses into Agenda 21, the socialists idea of Utopia. Here is the link to the full text of it: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

    “It is a detailed prescription for the goals and objectives of a global, totalitarian system. It is all out in the open and always was. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy.”

    Check out the comments (like the one above) in Sustainability Teaching: “lack of ethical dimension” from Walter Schneider, useless eater, Raving, myself, and galileonardo who said:

    “Gail, Walter, et. al. I don’t know why this Climategate email has gotten so little play, but it should have opened up more eyes as to the agenda:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=54&filename=889554019.txt

    They even use the term “global governance”….”

    I knew Agenda 21 and CAGW were connected and now galileonardo shows the proof.

    Everyone at WUWT must understand exactly what were are actually fighting. Many see parts of it. Hopefully now more will see it’s actual name and shape.

    CAGW => Sustainability=> Agenda 21

  60. BertF. says:
    July 12, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    Since the WSJ was bought out by ultra-conservative Murdoch, I don’t think that there is going to be any flinching by attacks from the likes of Gore and compadre’s. On the other hand they sometimes have to be reckoned with for their own methods of distortion and non-reporting (e.g. the poor coverage of the Gulf Oil leak effects on the southern coastline).
    _________________________________________________________________
    I thought they did a bang up job in this article: BP Decisions Set Stage for Disaster

    “…But neither scenario explains the whole story. A Wall Street Journal investigation provides the most complete account so far of the fateful decisions that preceded the blast. BP made choices over the course of the project that rendered this well more vulnerable to the blowout, which unleashed a spew of crude oil that engineers are struggling to stanch.

    BP, for instance, cut short a procedure involving drilling fluid that is designed to detect gas in the well and remove it before it becomes a problem, according to documents belonging to BP and to the drilling rig’s owner and operator, Transocean Ltd.

    BP also skipped a quality test of the cement around the pipe—another buffer against gas—despite what BP now says were signs of problems with the cement job and despite a warning from cement contractor Halliburton Co…”

    I do not need the “woe is me everyone is gonna die” stories from the WSJ we get enough of them from the “screaming greenies”.

  61. Nothing to see here. Just BIG CLIMATE trying to stir the pot. World wide there are billions to be made shorting on eco-fallout.

  62. Ralph Dwyer says:
    July 12, 2010 at 7:59 pm
    Supportive email sent to the WSJ. I’m also challenging Michael Hawthorne at the Chicago Tribune for his use of the term “climate-change pollution” supposedly sanctified by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 “and other heat-trapping gasescan be regulated as air pollution.” As related to the new Prairie State coal plant in southern Illinois. Enough to gag a maggot.
    ——
    REPLY: Hah, another Chicago guy! Here’s what Chicago Tribune had to say about the wonderful, new Prairie State plant:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-coal-plant 20100710,0,3747005.story

    “Though the company and its partners promote the plant as a national model for environmentally friendly “clean coal” technology, Prairie State will be the largest source of carbon dioxide built in the United States in a quarter-century.”

    Deliver us from stupidity….if cap & trade goes through, Illinois rate-payers will really get the shaft.

  63. Sean Peake says:
    July 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    My two cents:

    It’s nice to see that Lord Soros has stirred his trolls to rise out of the earth to swarm the WSJ….

    For those choosing to stay above ground they may want to consider moving closer to the equator or stocking up on firewood because it’s about to get cold. Real cold. For some time.
    __________________________________________________________________
    No, no, no Sean, Lord Soros trolls are not allowed to use fire because, GASP it produces that death dealing gas CO2. Instead they must prey to GAIA and the prophet Gore as they huddle in caves. (they are not allowed to build anything because that would hurt GAIA)

  64. @ kramer

    “Here’s Joseph Stiglitz listed on a Socialist International web site”.

    So what? Have you ever heard of Senator McCarthy and “guilt by association”? Many of the people listed in that web page are members of European social democratic parties, most of which abandoned Marxism early on in their history.

    “You can also find Gordon Brown listed on SocialistInternational.”

    That is hardly surprising since the British Labour Party is nominally a socialist party but it officially ditched traditional socialist economic dogma in 1995 when Tony Blair persuaded the Labour Party to completely rewrite Clause 4 of its constitution. That decision was largely symbolic since the party had long since abandoned its hostility to private enterprise.

    My own opinion is that after the Collapse of Communism discredited some of the traditional economic policies of the left, some left-wingers did turn to environmentalism to give themselves a sense of purpose (and therefore to a limited extent I agree with Kramer) but you can find people of different shades of political opinion on both sides of the AGW debate.

    Some people may think that if some believers in AGW are associated with “socialism” that damages their cause. However in most countries there are probably far more people who think that it would be even more damaging for climate sceptics to be associated with right-wing nutters and conspiracy theorists.

    Both viewpoints are unfair. The truth or falsity of political opinions has no bearing on whether or not carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of climate change. If CO2 is largely responsible then we have some very serious decisions to make. Both supporters of the CO2 theory and sceptics should support efforts to find definitive answers so that the science really will be settled.

  65. Ed Murphy says:
    July 13, 2010 at 12:01 am

    ….The flooding, dropping temps, heavy snows and ice are classic solar minimum deepening and volcano eruption volume increase. The stuff serious change is made of. And its certainly not warming.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A

    http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010.doc

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6…#otherarticles

    Analyzing data from our optical dust logger…

    Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrient-limited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano–climate system.
    _______________________________________________________________________
    That is Joe B’s “triple crown of global cooling”

    even some of the CAGW pet scientists see we could be in for a world of hurt and a massive volcano(es) eruption would be the game changer (or climate change switch)
    (note: keep an eye on the Russian volcanoes too they are acting up. http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/avoreport.php?view=kaminfo )

    The Milankovitch Cycles

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
    “… Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.

  66. Barrie Harrop was especially peeved at having a large number of his posts removed from the comments section on that article. For those who do not know Barrie, he is a troll for all seasons who is pumping (literally) for his windmill driven reverse osmosis scheme because of the AGW.

  67. Q/ The human population is far higher than any other primate at any time in history The UK’s Royal Society is launching a major study into human population growth and how it may affect social and economic development in coming decades.

    The world’s population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with nine billion projected by 2050.

    The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.

    It is led by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Human Genome Project fame.

    Continue reading the main story It is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we talk a lot about
    Jonathon Porritt

    Forum for the Future

    Earth is too crowded for Utopia
    “This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now,” he told BBC News.

    “So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development.”

    The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity.

    The working group includes experts on the environment, agriculture, economics, law and theology drawn from a mix of rich and poor countries including the UK, China, Brazil and the US.

    Green growth

    In the 1970s, with disastrous food shortages routine in regions of Asia and Africa, the world’s apparently dwindling capacity to feed its rapidly growing population was an issue high on the political agenda.

    New crops developed during the Green Revolution and other advances in agriculture, combined with economic progress, seemed to allay these fears in subsequent decades.

    In addition, some people in developing countries argued that western nations raised the issue as a means of distracting attention from the rising and unsustainable consumption in the west.

    Population growth is an often unspoken driver of trends such as deforestation Recently, however, population has started to re-emerge as an issue of discussion among people working on environment and development issues.

    High-profile champions such as Sir David Attenborough have spoken of its importance and the threats it may pose.

    However, some economists and policymakers consider population growth a good thing, as it produces a swelling workforce capable of producing more goods and continued economic growth.

    Jonathon Porritt, founder and director of the UK think tank Forum for the Future and a member of the Royal Society’s working group, suggested the review could shed some objective light on the issues under dispute.

    “What it can do is shed some light on the different interpretations that people draw from the underlying trends,” he said.

    “Why do some people say it doesn’t matter and is all welcome, while others such as me say it is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we are talking a lot about?”

    Policymakers needed such objective studies, he said, in order to make effective choices – for example, deciding whether and how to support family planning policies in the developing world.

    The Royal Society’s study is launched on World Population Day, and is expected to conclude in early 2012. /nuQ

    Slowly the truth will become public. I will bet London to a brick that none of the scientific Elite who propagated this scam are asked to depopulate.
    regards

  68. Can you imagine the reaction the press would have if BP had emails showing that they had asked one another to delete records and emails showing irresponsibility on their part, if they had orchestrated industry coersion of the media, and if they had done the other things that Mann & CRU have done? So, why not now with what Mann & CRU have actually already done? The answer is found in one simple 9-letter word:
    H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

  69. Q/ The human population is far higher than any other primate at any time in history The UK’s Royal Society is launching a major study into human population growth and how it may affect social and economic development in coming decades.

    The world’s population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with nine billion projected by 2050.

    The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.

    It is led by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Human Genome Project fame.

    Continue reading the main story It is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we talk a lot about
    Jonathon Porritt

    Forum for the Future

    Earth is too crowded for Utopia
    “This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now,” he told BBC News.

    “So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development.”

    The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity.

    The working group includes experts on the environment, agriculture, economics, law and theology drawn from a mix of rich and poor countries including the UK, China, Brazil and the US.

    Green growth

    In the 1970s, with disastrous food shortages routine in regions of Asia and Africa, the world’s apparently dwindling capacity to feed its rapidly growing population was an issue high on the political agenda.

    New crops developed during the Green Revolution and other advances in agriculture, combined with economic progress, seemed to allay these fears in subsequent decades.

    In addition, some people in developing countries argued that western nations raised the issue as a means of distracting attention from the rising and unsustainable consumption in the west.

    Population growth is an often unspoken driver of trends such as deforestation Recently, however, population has started to re-emerge as an issue of discussion among people working on environment and development issues.

    High-profile champions such as Sir David Attenborough have spoken of its importance and the threats it may pose.

    However, some economists and policymakers consider population growth a good thing, as it produces a swelling workforce capable of producing more goods and continued economic growth.

    Jonathon Porritt, founder and director of the UK think tank Forum for the Future and a member of the Royal Society’s working group, suggested the review could shed some objective light on the issues under dispute.

    “What it can do is shed some light on the different interpretations that people draw from the underlying trends,” he said.

    “Why do some people say it doesn’t matter and is all welcome, while others such as me say it is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we are talking a lot about?”

    Policymakers needed such objective studies, he said, in order to make effective choices – for example, deciding whether and how to support family planning policies in the developing world.

    The Royal Society’s study is launched on World Population Day, and is expected to conclude in early 2012. /unQ

    regards.

  70. Here’s an irony for the Gore crowd who’s “demanding the WSJ cover the facts about climate science”: I asked essentially the same-but-opposite question of PBS’ NewsHour last year, and wrote about it in an American Thinker blog 12/09 titled “The lack of climate skeptics on PBS’s ‘Newshour’ ” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.htm

    In my continuing efforts of asking the NewsHour to prove their AGW reporting is balanced, I once again challenged them to show me how skeptics were fairly treated. Just today, I completed a 3-day effort of cutting / pasting / counting online transcripts of their program going back to 1996, to see for myself. Out of 212 program segments & some online background info pages, can you guess how many had discussion of basic skeptic science? Three on-air segments, featuring Western Fuels CEO Fred Palmer, CEI’s Chris Horner, and Joe Barton (R-Tx), and one web page. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor appeared once in an interview, as did Pat Michaels, but neither had an opportunity to speak about the science, Roger Pielke Sr was only allowed two sentences. How often did IPCC scientists Michael Oppenheimer, Stephen Schneider & Kevin Trenberth appear unopposed, speaking a great length about AGW? 7, 4 & 2 times, respectively.

  71. I’m a long time reader, but first time poster to this site.

    I felt compelled to write to the editor of the WSJ congratulating their article for being a “job well done” and bringing some much needed balance to the mainstream media constant embracing of messages from “Climate Change Calamitists”.

    Keep up the good work Anthony, the truth will out.

  72. One thing the Goreiesta’s have learned to our sorrow, “It Never Hurts To Ask, Demand, Cry, Kick, Scream, Shout, Bully, Sue, Threaten, Plead, or…____.” When you’re out saving the world from idiots, you have to challange everything; you cannot eat, speep, or relax for a moment, they who know all must be obeyed.

  73. Dissenting opinions indeed, simply opinions, not alternative research conclusions.

    The equation of Gore to CRU to all AGW advocates shows your willingness to simplify and generalize your opponent (when you’d never allow the same standards used on you). You’d quickly cry “ad hominem” if the association of opinions place you alongside oil industry, coal industry, steel industry, creationists, bankers, 9/11 truthers.

    Way to stoop to a new level by bragging about your web traffic, I guess Ron Paul is a successful candidate by your count.

    Is it possible you had a bigger bump for climategate because the market has a smaller supply (thus less competitors) of “pro-AGW denial” information? (and Gore’s site is just one of many pro-AGW alarmist websites, not all of which are urgently sensationalizing the scandal)

    Does Youtube viewership show a similar pattern?

  74. I think it may be a mistake to over-identify former Vice President Gore as Mr. CO2 Climate Activist. This may be giving him much more credit than he really deserves and cause members of his party to ignore Climategate revelations and regard skeptical AGW statements to be the demented ramblings of right-wing Republicans. At this time, it appears to me that the former vice-president is a fading force in this issue.

  75. They have the nerve to say:

    “A news outlet like the Wall Street Journal relies on its reputation as a balanced, unbiased news source. With your help, we can convince the Journal editorial page to give equal space to the fact that climate scientists have been exonerated and their findings remain affirmed.”

    Shouldn’t we write a similar letter to Science and Nature in the same terms, ie.: giving equal space to scientific views discrediting the AGW hypothesis? Would they give it?

    Don’t hold your breath.

Comments are closed.