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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@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.
Done my part.
Thanks Anthony for letting us know what’s going on!
Ecotretas
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.
Short note of thanks to the WSJ duly sent.
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”
God bless all you honest people.We,the worms,are turning.”You can fool all—–etc”
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.
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?
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
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
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.
Letter sent to the WSJ:
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
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
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.
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.]
*sigh* These temperature tantrums by the warm mongers are becoming tiresome.
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.
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.
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
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
Meant to type “Quick Ice” instead of sand.. dangit..
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
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”.
Nothing to see here. Just BIG CLIMATE trying to stir the pot. World wide there are billions to be made shorting on eco-fallout.
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.