Climategate Hacking Timeline
Tweet
From international e-mail hacking to conservative blogs in no time, lickety-split.
33 Responses to “Climategate Hacking Timeline”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“According to a Nexis news search, the Climategate story has been reported at least 325 times in the American press alone.”
I love how ThinkProgress thinks this is proof that the press is going full-court on this story. The WaPo ALONE did 325 stories on Bob McDonnell’s thesis this summer. But the entire American media COMBINED did 325 stories about ClimateGate last month, and suddenly it’s the most overcovered story since Michael Jackson?!?
PS: I bet if you take out the stories from FOX News, the NY Post, and the WaTimes, you’re down to less than 50 stories. In a month. For the ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
Because it’s a non-story. Or do you get this bent out of shape when an individual researcher in say, parasitology, plays with his data?
It’s potentially a problem in scientific circles related to the good standing of the researchers in question, but those are very, very small circles. This is most definitely not the “smoking gun” that climate change deniers think it is. The very idea that a couple leaked e-mails from a small group of climate researchers can somehow prove the falseness of manmade global climate change is not just wrong, it’s fucking ludicrous and laughable.
Seriously.
Exxon is their daddy
Who’s your daddy:
(1) The big money climate change scientists and their powerful institutions from governmental centers to Universities,
(2) The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is a Geneva-based, highly funded bureaucracy controlled by one-world government political activists,
(3) Environmentalists (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, etc.) who seek to use threats of climate chaos to stop the use of fossil fuels and return to a simpler, more “natural”, primitive lifestyle,
(4) Government at all levels whose political leaders find dealing with global warming is their opportunity to save us all from disaster cementing their status and success,
(5) The media populated by people who love to warn us of impending disaster and give us the advice we need to cope, who believe in Al Gore and his political party and who know that “the sky is falling” is the best headline of them all,
(6) Al Gore, who uses his status as a successful former Senator and Vice President to provide a platform to promote his message of doom and gloom, a message he learned in his only college science class and must have truly believed for many years but should see now is only an empty threat.
(7) the big financial operators like Goldman Sachs who made a killing out of the sub-prime housing scam, the ‘bailout’ scam and are 100% up for the cap and trade scam – by far the biggest and most lucrative of them all.
The total financial resources and power structure behind “Climate Change” are staggering.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/john-coleman-on-the-six-legged-monster/
Shorter william: “It’s the voodoo, I tells ya.”
william, you have no idea how science actually works. If there were any indication at all that the data were somehow being fudged, or the research were shoddy, there would be labs all over the world trying to prove them wrong. As it is, the stolen emails reveal scientist being petty and snarky. So fucking what.
You want us to believe that multiple, independent labs conducting peer reviewed research are somehow locked into a global conspiracy to what …. instill a world government?
Get a grip.
big money climate change scientists – ha! ha ha!
Everybody knows when you’re armed with any type of science degree, research is the place to make mad money! That, and teaching high school science. Those folks are rolling in it for real!
How does he not mention the biggest little David of all – the fossil fuel industry? Ya know, the industry that includes the most traded commodity in the world, crude oil. Do they have no stake in this at all?
If there were any indication at all that the data were somehow being fudged, or the research were shoddy, there would be labs all over the world trying to prove them wrong.
There are.
Recently Atrios posed the question, “What do the wingnuts think those in favor of ameliorating global warming have to gain from it?”, and apparently got some answers similar to the inane nonsensical bullshit william posted:
To be a wingnut who belives, as william apparently does, that there is such a thing as a “big money climate change scientist”, you have to accept the following premises:
1. A talented, motivated, highly mathematically able individual spends something on the order of a decade or more as a lowly, poor undergraduate, graduate student, and postdoc to obtain the “climate scientist union card”.
2. Upon attainment of this certification, said individual can try to find an academic professorship or civil service research position, most of which make far less money than any entry level stock analyst.
3. It apparently never occurred to this highly mathematically inclined individual that for a fraction of the time in school they could land a job on Wall Street making an order of magnitude more than any academic position as a low level starting salary.
4. Being angry at “capitalism” for some nebulous, inadequately explained reason, said individual concocts an elaborate, decades long plan along with numerous other individuals all around the world, which is all kept super secret, to convince people that human activity is making the atmosphere retain more heat over time which will have damaging environmental effects over time, the most serious of which would not be seen until after said individuals are dead.
5. After having to push and prod bureaucratic institutions and public opinion against much much better funded and hysterical opposition for years, they will stand to make assloads of cash, again through some nebulous, inadequately explained process.
It’s truly a fascinating reality the wingnut lives in. I hope someday to be able to try whatever drugs william and friends must be on.
Wow, William. That’s some really excellent crazy. Nice work.
Farris you link to the blog of a global warming skeptic, who disagrees with the interpretation of the data. Fine, there are scientifically literate skeptics out there. I never claimed there weren’t. I recently attended a colloquium by one of them*.
Watts is a frickin’ meteorologist. In other words, he stood in front of a camera and gave weather forecasts. What is his training in geophysics? Atmospheric physics or chemistry? What?? He has none? Where are his published, peer reviewed analyses of the data? What? He just writes a blog? … Oh.
One skeptic writing a blog does not disprove the scientific work of EVERY OTHER PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDY.
(*My colleague, by the way, is skeptical that CO2 is the cause of the warming. He is, however, very concerned with rising acidity in the oceans, which can be directly linked to CO2 in the atmosphere. He also has rather convincing data from the Smoky Mountains that indicates the climate change can be directly linked to human activity.)
Don’t you feel just a little bit silly screaming “PEER REVIEWED” in all CAPS when the emails in question prove that the scientists in question made sure that only a select group of fellow travelers were selected to be “peers” and noone else was allowed access to the data?
I would, but then again I guess part of being a liberal is renouncing the very concept of shame.
Then there’s the pesky issue with the fact that I can fucking go water skiing across the North Pole come summer, Greenland is rapidly turning into snow soup, Antarctica is breaking up faster than Team Eldrick, and Glacier National Park is going to need a god-damned asterisk in a decade or so. Holy fuck, you fucking Fox News Sheepshit. You’re not fucking helping.
Link, please. The emails I have read have said no such thing. The author of a paper has no say in who will peer review it. The peer reviewer remains anonymous unless he or she wishes their identity revealed.
And you still have not explained how one research group at one lab somehow lassoed the entire scientific community into their little conspiracy. Or how the same results were obtained from multiple labs using multiple sources of data, none of which disputed the findings of this one group.
Indeed, you clearly don’t get the big picture. The evil climate scientists have enlisted the Earth herself into their vast conspiracy.
Stop hitting yourself in the face William. “Green Balloons”, already.
Source. You’re welcome.
[Adopt righteously and madly indignant Star Trek 2 Kirk voice]:
GAAAAAIIIIIIIAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The article they are referring too was widely disputed in the scientific community and viewed as inadequately peer reviewed. The editor and several reviewers of the journal in question resigned in disgust, and the so-called “peer review” method of that particular journal – sending the manuscript to a single reviewer, hand-picked by the authors – is exactly what you were complaining about in an earlier post.
And the upshot? Not a damned thing. The disputed articles still appeared in the final report. What you have is a couple of scientists blowing off steam and making empty threats. Hardly the end of science as we know it.
But you don’t care, do you? I could gather 100 independent scientists from different 100 fields to explain exactly why the so-called climategate is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” and you still would insists that its the smoking gun that puts an end to climate change, in spite of the evidence.
The hallmark of a true conservative. Facts are irrelevant. Only the narrative matters.
*snort* I just noticed the byline on your link. Jeff Jacoby – hardly a non-biased source, and whose scientific credentials are exactly … sqaut.
Right, like Al Gore deciding the chump change of corporate boards and the lecture circuit were small beer compared to the huge bucks in making a movie about the environment!
“Greenland is rapidly turning into snow soup”
If you cared to look further than the end of your nose, you ‘d see that Greenland has been much warmer and much colder without the help of humans –
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
“For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.”
And if you’ll look further than Mouth-breather-grade Denialist Horseshit, you’ll find that I cited GLOBAL Warming. Not just Greenland. Gimme a call when EVERYTHING totally fucking reverses course. Holy fuck are you Fox Newsers stupid.
For a warming religionist, you have a really foul mouth.
The EARTH has been warmer and cooler with varying levels of Co2 in the atmoshpere for millenia. Interesting how your religion only focuses on the last 100 years.
What the fuck are you talking about? I don’t speak Doocy.
Your strawman not withstanding – The US government alone has spent $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” (SPPI 2009)
AGW “science” is big money. Ask Michael Mann. He’s received at a minimum of $6 miilion in grant dollars over the past few years.
Which means the glaciers totally aren’t shrinking! Thanks Fox News William!
First of all, the last few years implies, oh the last few years, not 13 years.
Second, he’s not even the lead researcher on all of those projects.
Third, many of them have 3 or so principle researchers.
So, ignoring any cost of equipment, additional assistants etc., that leaves about $460,000 a year divided among the 3 principle researchers, and that’s *gasp* $150,000 a year! Assuming no equipment cost and no assistants!
For a warming religionist…
A Dittohead?!?
Willie, I had no idea you were aping Limbaugh until you let that laugher fly.
heh, as somebody working as a scientist, let me tell you that lead researchers usually don’t get any of the grant money. The grant money is there to pay for the research, not the researchers. The researchers are paid by the University, and receive their typical salary — irrespective of the grants they get.
oh thank god… for a minute there, I thought I was doing it wrong!
Why does Farris always disappear when confronted with actual, you know, facts??