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:
The letter from Gore’s followers is presented in it’s entirety and unaltered below, all boldings are theirs.- Anthony
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.”
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
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.
Based on artwest’s comment, I think we need to call the AGW business a “climate protection racket”.
“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’.
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….
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)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
One Voice is all it takes. Anthony, you are officially dangerous, to Al’s cause!! Congrates are in order!!
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
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
And, oh yeah, I ignored the talking points. If I can’t add anything beyond talking points, my view is not worth hearing.
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.
@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 …
Al Gore’s millions? More like Al Gore’s minions.
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.’
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 😛
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….
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.
“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. 🙂
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.
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 …
They let the people being investigated hire (and pay?) the “independent” forensic analyst, and they want us to take their investigation seriously? Really?
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.