====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Paula, Do you even bother to read the articles you reference? Are you counting on people simply accepting your characterizations of them without reading them for themselves? If your jaw dropped because of the Guardian article, you should see a doctor or a physiotherapist. There is nothing surprising in it to anyone who has any political/movement/activist experience. It makes no, I repeat, NO claims that undermine the case for global warming. As for the Monbiot article, here is his final few paragraphs: Damaging as some of this material is, at least people on this side of the climate science fence are able to confront the problem. Both stories - the glacier error and the revelations about the Chinese weather stations - were broken by the brilliant reporter Fred Pearce, who is possibly the world's longest serving environmental journalist, and has spent decades explaining and championing climate science. The IPCC's glacier claim was actually drawn from an article of Fred's, published in New Scientist in 1999. But it was he who exposed the mistake the panel had made. On the other side of the debate, people are in denial not only about the science of climate change but also about manipulation and deception by other climate change deniers. They stoutly ignore far graver evidence of falsification and fabrication by their own side, even when there is smoking gun evidence that their champions have secretly taken money from fossil fuel companies to make false claims. They make no attempt to hold each other to account or to sustain any standards of truth at all. In fact, as Fred Pearce has shown, even their claims about the material in the hacked emails are almost all false. The vast body of climate science still shows that manmade climate change is real and that it presents a massive challenge to human survival. But those of us who seek to explain its implications and call for action must demand the highest possible standards from the people whose work we promote, and condemn any failures to release data or admit and rectify mistakes. We do no one any favours - least of all ourselves - by wasting our time promoting false claims. So, enquiring minds want to know; Do you agree with Monbiot? or were you running a bluff? Darrel -------------------------------------------------- From: "Paula" <[email protected]> > > Anyone following this and other related 'climategate' scandals should take a > look at the UK's Guardian, traditionally an environmentalist-friendly > newspaper. The coverage there right now shows how far the tide is turning. > This article on the behind-the-scenes behavior of the so-called climate > experts is jaw-dropping: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review > And even George Monbiot is asking for resignations at the University of East > Anglia: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails#start-of-comments ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
