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.
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)
@ur momisugly 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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
nevket240 says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“[…] The Royal Society’s study is launched on World Population Day, and is expected to conclude in early 2012. /unQ”
At the same time we get a report about seeds arriving at a “doomsday vault”…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10603656.stm
Looks like they’re on to something.
“EXPECTED TO CONCLUDE IN
2012.”
2012.
Message sent to WSJ.
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.
Oops, the above link needs an “L” on it to work: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.html
Kerry-Lieberman latest 667 page utility only ‘cap-and-tax’ bill
http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/ghgdraft.pdf
#capandtrade #capandtax
Kerry, Lieberman circulate climate plan focused on power plants http://bit.ly/9uMnMs
Reid throws climate lifeline to greens http://bit.ly/bTUJdw
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.
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.
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?
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.
They have the nerve to say:
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.