3 ms·

A whole lot of words for very little actual content. For one the article recognizes that there has been a response from the opposite party saying: "the way thi

A whole lot of words for very little actual content. For one the article recognizes that there has been a response from the opposite party saying: "the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known." emphasis mine. To me this means that GHCN and Giss did put forward arguments as to why the data was modified, however instead of showing the reader these arguments (and why he believes them to be implausible) he simply dismisses them. And frankly, the rest of the article is a devoid of information as the above. There is a whole lot of name-dropping, and name-calling ("James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist)"), but no where does he put up any actual references or data to back-up his claims. I do not have the time to dive into literature and dissect his points one by one (again, he does not offer any references or concrete data so that would be difficult anyway), however his song sounds very familiar. Scientists adjust their data to ignore known cyclical effects: they're manipulating the facts! Scientists don't adjust their data: they're ignoring history to suit their agenda! And slightly off-topic, what are so many Americans doing in the comment section of a UK newspaper? And why are people ranting about Obamacare on an article about climate change?

briandear 12y ago
The UK papers are among the few English language papers that are willing to report on this issue. It's almost ignored by outlets like the NY Times unless it fits the narrative. You hardly ever see any contrarian stories published by the NY Times. As far as Obamacare, I didn't read the comments, however the government control of 1/5 of the US economy (health) is analogous to the attempted government control of the entire economy through anti-carbon initiatives. It's a debate of the role of government and 'climate change' legislation is but one part of it. However that being said, there are a bunch of nutcases that seem to spew spittle at their screen anytime the government is mentioned. But, given the alarming track record of government overreach (i.e. NSA surveillance of everything, civil asset forfeiture, etc,) their apparent tin foil hats do seem to have a basis in some reality.
- glomph 12y ago
  The telegraph should not be considered a reputable newspaper.
glomph 12y ago
This is literally a journalist reporting on one blogger who thinks that the whole scientific community is wrong. Of course the GHCN and Giss are not going to reply to every climate change denying blog... Edit: I said journalist. I now consider that misleadingly generous. This is a man who says that Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions” and more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/13/christopher-booker-misleading http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/ma...

briandear 12y ago

The UK papers are among the few English language papers that are willing to report on this issue. It's almost ignored by outlets like the NY Times unless it fits the narrative. You hardly ever see any contrarian stories published by the NY Times. As far as Obamacare, I didn't read the comments, however the government control of 1/5 of the US economy (health) is analogous to the attempted government control of the entire economy through anti-carbon initiatives. It's a debate of the role of government and 'climate change' legislation is but one part of it. However that being said, there are a bunch of nutcases that seem to spew spittle at their screen anytime the government is mentioned. But, given the alarming track record of government overreach (i.e. NSA surveillance of everything, civil asset forfeiture, etc,) their apparent tin foil hats do seem to have a basis in some reality.

glomph 12y ago
The telegraph should not be considered a reputable newspaper.

glomph 12y ago

This is literally a journalist reporting on one blogger who thinks that the whole scientific community is wrong. Of course the GHCN and Giss are not going to reply to every climate change denying blog... Edit: I said journalist. I now consider that misleadingly generous. This is a man who says that Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions” and more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/13/christopher-booker-misleading http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/ma...