In Phebe's absence, Rosie has become the Queen of Pretending To Be Insulted.

I didn't think you would apologize.

I'm serious about asking this question: are Condoleezza Rice and Sarah Palin considered to be climate change promoters, and if so, why?

I'm sort of surprised if they are.

I'm serious about asking this question: are Condoleezza Rice and Sarah Palin considered to be climate change promoters, and if so, why?

I'm sort of surprised if they are.

I will wait here for my apology. I can't wait!

Yeah, they both are.

And you didn't know it because -SURPRISE - you are uninformed.

I never mischaracterized your motives on this thread, as you did mine when you said: "You disagree because you don't like being framed into a dark light."

There's no way you can know why I disagreed there, looscannon.

that's true I guess, before these mopes, we had other mopes, or maybe the same mopes using different names. who knows...... I just think the abuse got a bit more immature, but also vicious....

I haven't insisted, but I did resent being sacked by susano when I've generally treated her with respect here.

In fact, I've been using "climate change skeptics" instead.

Great post from GLP:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-mo...e-2/#comment-90


90. frank verismo:

Consider the implications here:

�Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you�re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we�ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you�d like us to include.

You�re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We�ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont�get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone�

mike�
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=622&filename=1139521913.txt

What struck me as an important question having read this is: who owns realclimate.org? Can it be relied on for any degree of objectivity? It is, after all, held up by the AGW supporting community as a bastion of solid, politics-free climate science. The results of a quick search staggered me, to say the least. A search on whois.net revealed realclimate.org is registered to �Environmental Media Services�. http://www.whois.net/whois/realclimate.com
Okay. So who�s company is Environmental Media Services? A simple Wiki search tells us:
�EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore�s 2000 Presidential campaign�

Realclimate.org is owned by Al Gore�s press officer. You couldn�t make it up.
Nov 23, 2009 - 3:39 pm

Yeah, go to sleep, Faptard.

Very easy to do when something called "marketticker.org" demands legitimacy.

Nuff said.

OTOH, everything is political.....

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

By Associated Press
Sunday, November 22, 2009




LONDON (AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's global climate summit in Denmark.

Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade's worth of correspondence from a British university's computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade's worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

"It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I'm sure that is not a coincidence," Trenberth said in a telephone interview from Colorado.

At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.

Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."

In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies -- in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate change skeptics.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

The following could have been written by Al Gore

Remember the "over-representation of factual representations" recommended here mean lies foir a "good" cause, and it reminds us of Dan Rather's scruples-free defense of his lies about President Bush - that they were "Fake, but True."

The "over-representation of factual representations" is what the leftards have been relying on... more scare, more alarmism, more lies, and it soaked through in the Gore propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" which has been shown to be rife with lies.

This is what the "scientists" want to portray, as the quote from Al Gore shows:

"Question: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Al Gore: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Grist

Gore: Lies are good, Facts are bad.