Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hockey stick rigged by alarmists

Note to alarmists: Keep Michael Mann away from sending e-mail.

From the Climategatew 2.0 collection, Keith Briffa wonders out loud to Michael Mann whether he should participate in the 2007 National Research Council (often mistakenly referred to as the National Academy of Sciences) review of the hokey stick. Mann encourages Briffa, but tells him not to worry since its all arranged to produce the right outcome.

After receiving the invitation from the National Research Council, Briffa writes to Mann:

Mike
IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
Keith

Mann responds,

Hi Keith,

I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim [Osborn] I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.

I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.

The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:

http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?OpenDocument

So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you’d like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5 hours, but then free most of the day… [Emphasis added]

Briffa responds,

Mike

thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be politic to retreat into “neutral” mode, at least until after the IPCC. Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics are starting to attack on this “non neutral” stance, and the less public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.

best wishes
Keith

With the Looming dominance of Steve McIntyre, Mann presses Briffa,

Hi Keith,

I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you’re coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any possibility Tim could do this instead? He’s less intimately involved w/the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they’ll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike

The full e-mail exchange is below.

Hi Keith,
I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the
science that you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed
by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you’re
coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any
possibility Tim could do this instead? He’s less intimately involved w/
the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for
him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they’ll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that
McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the
legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Mike
> thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I
> have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is
> intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be
> politic to retreat into “neutral” mode , at least until after the IPCC

> Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics
> are starting to attack on this “non neutral” stance, and the less
> public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I
> am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.
> best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 17:14 09/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is
>> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood
>> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in
>> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest
>> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton
>> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t
>> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and
>> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation
>> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on
>> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and
>> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.
>>
>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing
>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token
>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
>> http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/
8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?
OpenDocument
>>
>>
>> So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you’d
>> like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone
>> number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5
>> hours, but then free most of the day…
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Mike
>>> IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be
>>> frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
>>> Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>> X-SBRS: None
>>>> X-REMOTE-IP: 144.171.38.41—————————————————
>>>> X-IronPort-AV: i=”4.02,98,1139202000″;
>>>> d=”doc’32?scan’32,208,32″; a=”8557254:sNHT39904420″
>>>> Subject: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:55:58 -0500
>>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>>> Thread-Topic: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Thread-Index:
>>>> AcYce3i/
tURJ1nRBSbezvDYAmbiDhQAAJeAgAABmHeAAAFz5YAABterwAAAqT9AAKTmk4AAFc
V2QAAGRMBAAADHXgALyVAvAAJatBwAAACel8AABGFiwAAGtjsAAXF4z0A==
>>>>
>>>> From: “Kraucunas, Ian”
>>>> To:
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dr. Briffa,
>>>>
>>>> The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United
>>>> States is empanelling a committee to study “Surface Temperature
>>>> Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years”. The committee
>>>> will be
>>>> asked to summarize the current scientific information on the
>>>> temperature
>>>> record over the past two millennia, describe the proxy records that
>>>> have
>>>> been used to reconstruct pre-instrumental climatic conditions, assess
>>>> the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data over large spatial
>>>> scales, evaluate the overall accuracy and precision of such
>>>> reconstructions, and explain how central the debate over the
>>>> paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific
>>>> knowledge
>>>> on global climate change. I have attached the complete study proposal
>>>> (Word document).
>>>>
>>>> Since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy, we
>>>> have taken great care to assemble an unbiased panel of scientific
>>>> experts with the appropriate range of expertise to produce an
>>>> authoritative report on the subject. The committee slate will be
>>>> formally announced on Wednesday, but I can tell you that Jerry North
>>>> (Texas A&M) will be chairing the committee, and NAS Members Mike
>>>> Wallace, Karl Turekian, and Bob Dickinson will be on the panel, in
>>>> addition to a half-dozen other scientists with expertise in
>>>> statistics,
>>>> climate variability, and several different types of paleoclimate proxy
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> The committee would like to invite you to come to Washington DC on
>>>> Thursday, March 2nd to speak about your extensive work with this area
>>>> and to discuss your perspective on the issues noted above and in the
>>>> study proposal. The committee will be familiar with the relevant
>>>> peer-reviewed literature, but is also interested in any recently
>>>> submitted or accepted papers. We will be inviting 8-10 other
>>>> experts to
>>>> speak; a complete agenda will be made available prior to the meeting,
>>>> and the meeting will be open to the public. Speakers will be
>>>> reimbursed
>>>> for travel expenses and invited to stay for the entire open session of
>>>> the meeting (which will include a reception on Thursday evening and a
>>>> few speakers on Friday morning).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your time and interest, I hope that you are
>>>> available and willing to meet with our committee. If you are not
>>>> available on March 2nd, we have a limited number of timeslots
>>>> available
>>>> on March 3rd. We are trying to finalize the meeting schedule by
>>>> Friday
>>>> so please let me know if there is a particularly convenient time
>>>> that I
>>>> could call you this week to discuss details and answer any
>>>> questions you
>>>> might have (or feel free to call me directly).
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Ian Kraucunas
>>>>
>>>> ~~~
>>>> Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D.
>>>> Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
>>>> National Research Council of The National Academies
>>>> 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705
>>>> Washington, DC 20001
>>>> Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu
>>>> Phone: (202) 334-2546
>>>> Fax: (202) 334-3825
>>>
>>>
>>> –
>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>
>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>
>>
>> –
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>
> –
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

ClimateGate update: Wikipedia cannot be trusted on “man-made global warming”… articles re-written

… and therefore Wikipedia can’t really be trusted.  It’s sort of like the lamestream media in that way.  Or Barack Obama.  Once you’ve been exposed as having broken the sacred bonds of truth and honesty, even on a few issues, you lose the complete trust of the sensible set, and are ultimately completely screwed.  It’s really an all or nothing proposition when it comes to trust and touting oneself as an honest source of objective information.

Wikipedia has long been suspected by conservatives and other sensible people of having a bias against anything conservative (again, like the lamestream media).  But columnist Lawrence Solomon now exposes what I’m going to call apparent intellectual fraud with regard to the whole “man-made global warming” fraud, and its resulting ClimateGate scandal.  His weekend column at NatPo is reported and discussed at the excellent WattsUpWithThat web site this weekend (that place is a solid go-to site for ClimateGate, etc), but the original Solomon column from Saturday Dec. 19 2009 is right here

Here’s a snippet of the salient bits regarding Wikipedia:

…The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

[...]

…U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

[ Read more ]

The “Medieval Warm Period” that Solomon refers to is also referred to a lot by Lord Monckton, whose video I last posted explained how the ClimateGate “scientists” bastardized it.

It’s really not as confusing as it might sound.  It’s simply a massive fraud being perpetrated on you, which is being aided and abetted by most of the lamestream media, academia, liberal Hollywood, and exacerbated by the likes of Wikipedia and others.  It’s not by shear coincidence that all those institutions are well-know as centers of liberal-leftist advocacy.

MUST READ: Gerald Warner on the Copenhagen nonsense

Great 2-minute read from Gerald Warner, “an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general” in the Telegraph in the U.K..

Copenhagen climate summit: ‘most important paper in the world’ is a glorified UN press release

When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?

No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute” and “leak” a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.

After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.” Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.

[ READ THE REST ]

Confess your sins, enviro-sinners! Liberals all agree: it’s one o’ them “moral” thingy dingies!

Since we’re told by the secular-progressives on the left…

“…fighting the man-made global warming is, well, a ‘moral’ thing, so confess your sins!  Repent, sinners!  Join the crusaders for ‘environmental justice’!  Not to be confused with whatchucall yer ‘social justice’, which is kinda a diff’rent religion but it’s still like good ‘n it’s a ‘moral’ thingy ‘n stuff too… and of course passing the ‘health care’, uh, ‘reforms’ are a ‘moral’ deal too… but whatever… church and state!  Oh hang on.  Oh shut up!  Green jobs now! Green jobs now! …”

… the Fraser Institute made this helpful aid:

 

Socialists, tyrants Chavez, Mugabe etc all agree: man-made global warming is real! Blame capitalism!

Good recap by Andrew Bolt helping show once again that the Copencrappin’ summit is little more than a summit of socialist tyrants and murderers and rabid anti-capitalists addressing not “man made global warming” or even their new name, “climate change”, but actually they’re fighting God-given freedom and capitalism.  And they’re fighting to “redistribute wealth” —or just steal it through the guise of outright “man-made global warming” fraud — from successful, capitalist, free countries and their hard-working citizens, to poor countries most often led by tyrannical socialist dictators who hate America, capitalism, the west generally, and everything we stand for, and hold their people and their countries down as socialist dictators and communists.  And so on.  You know, as we’ve been saying for years. 

Putting our economy in the hands of Chavez fans

Andrew Bolt
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:34pm

These maniacs in Copenhagen are voting on your future:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

[...]

UPDATE 2

And a mass-murderer at Copenhagen lectures us about our crimes:

The anti-capitalist theme was picked up on by Mr Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s veteran President, who is the target of Western sanctions over alleged human rights abuses.

“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.”

UPDATE 3

Nothing is real in Copenhagen – not the temperature record, not the predictions, not the agenda, not the “solution”. In fact, here’s how fake it all is:

[Read it]

EXTRA TRUE BLUE re the REAL “GREEN”

Also good is an op/ed by Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, in the Vancouver Sun and possibly other Canwest papers today:
Copenhagen grifters plan $3,000 con on every Canadian family

By Kevin Gaudet, Special to the Sun, December 17, 2009

Would you be upset if you knew your government was about to get duped in a con that would cost your family at least $3,000 a year in new taxes? That is exactly what is happening in Copenhagen right now.

The developing world has teamed up with global warming activists in Copenhagen at the world climate conference. Together they are planning the big con. Key to the con is to play on the eco-guilt of the developed world; using it to scam cash from “rich countries,” and transferring it to the developing world; all in the name of “ending climate change.” The Copenhagen grifters are hoping to cash the cheques before the developing world wakes up to the con.

A leaked draft version of the agreement on the table at the Copenhagen climate conference reveals plans for a massive transfer of wealth out of Canada. This transfer will come in the form of new taxes and the establishment of a new world government body for climate change housed in the World Bank.

Lord Christopher Monckton is reported to have obtained a working copy of the draft agreement. …

MUST SEE VIDEO on ClimateGate and the fraud and fraudsters behind it

This video features a light 40 minute lecture — to scientists — by the very entertaining and knowledgeable Lord Monckton, whom I featured here in a blog entry the other day, arguing with one of those “mad-made global warming” moonbats protesting at Copencrappin’.  He’s also an adviser to the group, CFACT, who turned the tables on Greenpeace and draped banners over the Greenpeace ship “Rainbow Warrior” reading “Ship of Lies” and “Propaganda Warrior”. 

Counterinsurgency against Greenpeace ship “Rainbow Warrior” in Copencrappin’ — now “Ship of Lies”

The sensible set take action. 

”…the [CFACT] activists daringly boarded Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise with neither stealth nor force, but by baffling the crew with doughnuts, and unfurled a banner that read “Ship of Lies” off the starboard side. …”

Read about it here

See the video:

Here’s another banner that didn’t make it onto the video:
image

Hat tip and a doughnut to Warren Z.

Copencrappin’ update: U.N. head Moon announces end of U.N., finally!

image

“There is no time for posturing or blaming.”
—UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, bat.  He was posturing and blaming the U.S. and other western capitalist nations TALKING ABOUT the “man made global warming”/Copencrappin’ summit of bat poo

But of course if “there is no more time for posturing or blaming”, which is what the UN does all day long, the UN is done like a bat’s dinner. 

Ahhh.  The UN.  Good times.

Hat tip to columnist Peter Foster for inspiring me to bestow this honor.

CTV reports Al Gore arctic “warming” story, but it’s already debunked as a lie by Times in U.K.

I love this.  The CTV perseveres in repeating — as truth — a lie to Canadians, which even the liar has admitted wasn’t true.  CTV leaves their story up nonetheless

image

imageLook at the difference in coverage —not just the photos they used (CTV with Gore posing as an erudite professor; the Times showing him looking a tad sheepish —like a smarmy, sweaty liar who has just been caught, once again, lying). 

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up

December 15, 2009

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming. …

I guess CTV News doesn’t follow — or report — the news so much. 

EXTRA SWEATY— NEWS EDITOR FUN WITH MIND MOLDING

I liked the picture accompanying the caught in a lie headline on Drudge Report —they used one that was obviously from the same set of photos the CTV looked at, only Drudge chose a more appropriate one.  Unlike the one the Gore-loving sycophants at the CTV “News” department and its editors chose, it didn’t cast Gore as honest old Professor Know-It-All.  Then again, Drudge is referring to the truth.
imageReporters catch Gore in ‘embarrassing error’ about Arctic ice—Gore admits. (Same story linked as above)

CTV skids along on its colon and a “fake” story; CBC demonstrates too: it’s about ending capitalism

image How about this headline instead: 
Joel Johannesen: ‘Climate science’, pretty fake!

CTV does another one of those headlines that agenda-driving media provides its audience.  Somebody said something they really wish they could say themselves, but they can’t because they’re still operating under the pretense that they’re a fair and balanced objective “news” source instead of actually largely being another liberal-left, agenda-driving machine, replete with liberal-left-biased propagandists posing as reporters and editors.  And God knows how that photo of “a melting glacier” popped up on their story!

Once again (I mentioned this last week), they put the name of whomever is saying it, a colon, then what they said.  This, they think, gives them what they want:  their message, put out there for all to see and read; plus by quoting someone else, that plausible deniability factor, which they think passes for “journalism”.  They make out like they’ve presented hard news; facts, truth, instead of (in this case) just another news propagandist’s opinion.  See how the article actually starts —it’s a good morning laugh. 

image
Reporters at AP reviewed the “science” at East Anglia, by interviewing the “scientists”  — the same ones who are the behind the whole scam — and concluded they’re A-OK, Jack!

This, we are to believe, is investigative “journalism” today.  This “review” or “fact-check” by a news organization heavily invested in the very story they are “fact-checking”, coming to a hilarious conclusion based on ether.

Don’t think their “fact-checking” is tainted? (And the CTV doesn’t either?!)  This is the same “news organization” and wire service which dispatched ELEVEN REPORTERS to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, Going Rogue, but didn’t dispatch any reporters to “fact-check” any of the books recently written by a liberal-leftists or Democrats, ever.  ELEVEN REPORTERS.  To “FACT-CHECK” Sarah Palin’s book.  (And by the way, they found NOTHING to report.  NOTHING.) 

So unless the CTV reporters and editors never read the news or any blogs, and are therfore woefully ignorant, the CTV KNOWS the AP is tainted in at least this way.  Or they simply don’t care, because this is helping advance their agenda.  Or they don’t care about anything, period.  I think they are knowingly misleading you, and misinforming you.  I think they are part of a serious problem, very much linked to the whole story of the ClimateGate scandal, part of which involves a cooperative cover-up of facts. 

  I feel like I’m in a Mafia movie.  Or Nineteen Eighty Four.

For their part, the socialism-reliant, state-owned and taxpayer-funded CBC presents a news photo on their front page this morning, which ever so unwittingly exposes the real ideological force behind the “man-made global warming” charade:  “Scrap Capitalism”.  Again, like CTV using their colon, the CBC is using someone else’s words to express their innermost parts.

image

-READER EMAIL-

image

From: E.M.
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 6:35 AM
To: proudtobecanadian.ca
Subject: about AP reviewing science

Hello Joel, I have been a professional scientist for 30 years now. I was never asked to sign a letter saying I agreed with a theory. My work was never “reviewed” by journalists.

Unlike politics, science does not value consensus. On several occasions in the past the majority was wrong. With time, the best idea wins, regardless of the initial number of its proponents. Also, to call a scientist a skeptic is a form of praise. I am proud of being one and I wonder why the climate alarmists are not.

E.M.,  BSc, PhD, MD.

image
Thanks, E.M. 

Truly,
Joel