err... no! Not 'Climate "sceptics"' it's ordinary people who are saying this! Any coverage on the BBC will probably involve using the term Climate Sceptic, get used to it. It's the same with Euro-Sceptic. It's a clever way to manipulate opinion.
After reading the whole thread I see you guys have pretty much covered everything there is to say lol.
I guess we'll just have to see if there is an investigation into similar behavior at other (aka US) climatology institutes.
I'll also be interested to see what Obama will do at the Copenhagen summit, since Gore very publicly canceled. He can either own up to the nation and not sign any agreements or suck up to his cronies and effectively give them millions(that the US doesn't have seeing as we're flat broke) by signing a carbon treaty.
you mean people stupid enough to not see that one has nothing to do with the other whatsoever?
well it does in some ways since cats increase co2 emissions
what a load of horseshit
he tries to make it sound like the research grants went into the researchers own pockets which anone with the tiniest bit of knowledge of the scientific process will be able to tell you is a flat out lie
also he talks about 13 million since he doesnt mention any timeframe or other numbers i suppose its their budget for a couple of years which is a perfectly normal number for a largeish research group over a couple of years
of course, they destroyed the raw data and have the ability to make the existing data say whatever they want so I dont see how reexamining it will be helpful. IMO they should just drop it and go home but they're too far invested to not try and salvage this with some even more expensive damage control. Looking at the emails it seems damage control is half the climatology industry.
Anyone have any ideas as to what Obama's move will be in Copenhagen? Signing that treaty would be political suicide seeing as climategate has 30+ million hits on google.
Here's one recent example of an eminent climate/geodynamics scientist trying to redress the current frenzy of alarmism. It rather helpfully hints at one aspect of the motivation for generating such hype, and rather slaps it down too: http://www.spectator.co.uk/cof ... dives-arent-sinking.thtml
Care the explain what is wrong with that article? Other than the fact you made up your mind that everything the BBC does is evil before you read it of course.
The article by itself looks fine to me, but must be taken in the context of the BBC completely ignoring Climategate for as long as it possibly could, and then only starting to mention it as part of articles pushing the global warming theory.
The BBC's coverage of the whole issue is painfully one-sided; everything they output comes with the assumed subtext of "of course global warming is happening and due to us." They give airtime to the PM saying we are right to be angry about the inaction on controlling CO2 emmissions (I'm angry with this govt for a lot of things, but funnily enough CO2 isn't one of them), they feature a substantial report on the usual great unwashed protesting around London (isn't that causing a traffic jam, and thus making more CO2?).
But the original story about the leak was never featured at all. When broadsheet newspapers had started to carry iton their front pages, BBC News still carried on, like it was in a different world where it had never happened and the most important thing was whatever bollocks, wealth-stripping initiative Our Great Leader Harriet Harman had pulled out her arse that particular day.
that's another major gripe of mine. News says 20,000 people marched in London today. Of course, being so concerned about the environmental damage being done by evil man and evil CO2 they all walked or cycled there...did they heck!
You've pretty much explained what I was going to say there. The overall coverage of this has been terribly bias from the BBC. I recall saying several weeks ago before this story hit the blogosphere that the BBC fail at demonstrating the full picture when it comes to scientific opinion on global warming. Painfully I was shockingly accurate (while being constantly ridiculed at the time).
It's exactly the same with the economic crisis. The BBC has failed to fully demonstrate the full scale of opinion. Obviously the BBC is an inherently socialistic organisation, so of course, consciously or unconsciously, they will vere towards the 'left' side of politics. I don't mind this side of opinion, I just don't like having to pay for it.
But this isn't about me, I just hope some lurkers on the forum may have finally understood my point of view. If this circumstance didn't help them understand, then nothing ever will.
Anyway, SamH, I know you said we should start a new thread on this but realistically if I started it it would only last about 5 minutes before someone starts mouthing off.
You like to think of yourself as some kind of lone voice, a whistleblower, victimised by the forces of evil. In reality you're just telling everyone what is glaringly obvious anyway, and we don't like being patronised.
Yeah, outraged by the scandal, which has mroe to do with UEA's Climate Research Unit than the BBC.
We know the BBC is biased towards the left, infact everyone knew that long before you cottoned on to it, find something new to be 'shockingly accurate' about (apart from karting of course).
This thread is about the goings on at the UEA, not the BBC, honestly if you start your own thread on the BBC I'll leave it well alone, its when you hijack other threads that people start on you.
Most people wouldn't give a dump over something as trivial as this. And perhaps I couldn't, but it still stands that if you patronise people then they are likely to think of you as being a bit of a twat.
Trying to get out of suddenly are we? Have we run of out points to make?
Now you'll look like such an arse when you come back here to stand on your soap box (which is inevitable).