+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
                 04/17/2014 02:33 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
Tea Party Primary Challenger Says John Boehner Has "Electile Dysfunction"
Russia Wants to Take Over the Moon
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/17/2014 12:16 AM
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Rapper Cuts Off Penis, Jumps Off Building in Apparent Suicide Attempt'
04/16/2014 10:06 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Rapper Cuts Off Penis, Jumps Off Building in Apparent Suicide Attempt'
04/16/2014 09:47 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Woman Sues Walmart, Claims Shampoo Tangled Hair So Much She Had to Cut It'
04/16/2014 09:25 PM
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh receives 20 Points for Comment about 'College Student Loses "Wheel of Fortune" Puzzle With All Letters Revealed'
04/16/2014 04:45 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Missing Boy Found Playing Happily With Stuffed Animals in "Bear Claw" Toy Machine'
04/16/2014 04:14 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'College Student Loses "Wheel of Fortune" Puzzle With All Letters Revealed'
  1.294 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
12/05/2009 06:00 PM ID: 81967 Permalink   

Rep. Issa Calls Obama´s Refusal to Investigate "Climategate" is "Unconscionable"


The U.N. has decided to investigate further into the email scandal known as "Climategate" because the research is linked to the work it has completed or promoted through its own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Rep. Darrell Issa said this is a "direct rebuke" of the Obama administration's refusal to look into the matter further. He went on to say that the integrity of the report they are basing their climate change policy on is being called into question.

"It is unconscionable that this administration and Congress is willing to abdicate responsibility of uncovering the truth to the United Nations," he said. The White House says one controversy does not undermine more reliable research going back decades.

    WebReporter: djskagnetti Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
The idea that anyone could think that global warming is a farce is "unconscionable". I can see if you have a problem with it being ´man made´, but that it doesn´t exist? I can´t fathom that. The evidence is overwhelming.
  by: Lurker     12/05/2009 06:43 PM     
  The White House is right  
"Climategate" is one of the most pathetic non-scandals the right has crapped out in a while. It´s right up there with the moron birthers. There´s far more evidence that global warming is real and that human activities contribute to it than there is that Julius Caesar ever existed.
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/05/2009 07:13 PM     
a moron. Ask a president, or in this case, force a president to look into allegation, as though Global warming science just happened because of circulating emails.
  by: skcusswentrohs     12/05/2009 07:45 PM     
That´s exactly what the emails detail;
WHY there´s more alleged evidence.
These UN and Carnegie funded scientists spent more time plotting and planning ways to quell dissenting opinions and blacklisting individuals than they needed to actually cook the books. It´s all there in the emails.
But of course we can´t be bothered with things like counter evidence after we´ve already made up our mind - that would be admitting that we were duped. Pride cometh before the fall, much?
  by: Jenkie     12/05/2009 08:04 PM     
  Global Warming is a Hoax  
Global Warming (ie man-made Climate Change) is a Hoax intended to appease extreme environmentalists and line Al Gores pockets.

"Although White House spokesman Robert Gibbs may think “quite frankly” that most Americans believe global warming is not “in dispute anymore,” Rasmussen Reports´ latest poll contradicts him. The new poll reveals that:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Americans believe that there continues to be “significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming”; and

“Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.”"

Remember the stories about how global warming was endangering the polar bears? Yeah... that was all a hoax to support the global warming hoax.
More proof that the Liberals and environmental-extremists will do any and everything necessary to suit their agenda... even lie to and manipulate you. Watch this:

How the global warming hoax is all about money and a power-grab for governements:
  by: CArnold     12/05/2009 08:17 PM     
  @This crap above  
Wow... I absolutely love how conspiracy theories, ignorance, political hatred, and out of context polls have become the fuel for a giant ball of ignorant hate since the last election. Note my sarcasm.
  by: pcfreak   12/05/2009 08:46 PM     
QUOTE:But of course we can´t be bothered with things like counter evidence after we´ve already made up our mind - that would be admitting that we were duped. Pride cometh before the fall, much?

Wow you hit the nail on the head. Look around and you can see those who would rather dimiss the emails and its content just so they won´t be wrong.
  by: hellblazer     12/05/2009 09:04 PM     
don´t you just love how "political hatred" in only tolerated when it is left against right? You´re all a bunch of morons
  by: ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh   12/05/2009 09:27 PM     
  It is!  
Quote:Obamas Refusal To Investigate Climategate "Unconscionable"

These emails are real. Hacked or not the content should constitute a investigation. We are talking about millions of dollars being spent globally on research. And millions to be made by the select few if they can sell the idea. I think the question should be. If it is not a hoax then why does the content of the emails indicate otherwise?? I can´t believe no matter how hard I try believe these top scientist wrote these just joking around.Lets face it, something is wrong and if anyone can defend Obama´s or anyone´s position for not investigating this I would love to hear their train of thought as to why this should be dismissed. The emails were not written by anyone who would be opposed to it.
  by: hellblazer     12/05/2009 09:49 PM     
  Since when...  
Do Republicans pander to U.N. bullying?
  by: vlynxy   12/05/2009 10:16 PM     
  Since when  
... does the president of the U.S. have the authority to investigate a university in England in the first place? I mean, Blair would have let Bush do it, but I think Blair would have let Bush do a lot of things ... *if* you know what I mean ... : )
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/05/2009 10:30 PM     
Now Ben... You aren´t implying that Bush would be presenting a protein stained dress in court would you? lol
  by: pcfreak   12/05/2009 11:10 PM     

  by: vlynxy   12/05/2009 11:29 PM     
Not an investigation into England though we do have a relationship with them. How about we have a full blown investigation into all the studies that are being conducted here, especially ones that derived data from the fact finding England studies.

Quote:I mean, Blair would have let Bush do it, but I think Blair would have let Bush do a lot of things ..

Your Bush remarks are getting old. Get up with the times and start calling a spade a spade!
  by: hellblazer     12/05/2009 11:46 PM     
  It´s December 5th  
I am in Virginia. A southern State. We have had TWO measurable snow falls so far this winter.... wait it´s not technically winter yet... Yeah... global warming is a killer.
  by: boaznjachin     12/06/2009 01:25 AM     
  My take  
Given that the emails span 13 years there are not NEAR enough emails in this leak/hack/whatever. My suspicion is that whoever obtained these emails chose not to release a lot of them on idealogical grounds.

I only wish this standard of scandal was applied to both sides of the debate. It seems that fake experts, incomplete or flat out wrong science, etc is only wrong if you don´t side with the big money industries.
  by: ixuzus     12/06/2009 01:34 AM     
Given that there were thousands of e-mails and documents within this release of data, only the most sensational or newsworthy e-mails will get reported on. If the press were to report on every file/email, it would take hours to do.

But, if anyone would like to examine the files, you can download the leaked files here and see for yourself:

This is *the* file that was posted on the internet that contains all the hacked e-mails and files. Happy reading, to all.
  by: CArnold     12/06/2009 07:18 AM     
  Just a few excerprts from the ClimateGate e-mails:  
(I´ve surrounded some sentences in curly-brackets "{}" for emphasis on the "interesting" parts.)

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

"{The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.} The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. {Our observing system is inadequate.}"

From Michael Mann (truth doesn´t matter):

"Perhaps we´ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ´06 sensitivity test) in our original post! {As we all know, this isn´t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.}"

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

"The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. {Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !}"

From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

"We probably need to say more about this. {Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.}"

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature {trick} of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s {to hide the decline.}"

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

{"Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.")

(The above e-mail was pretty juicy, so I just surrounded the whole thing with curly-brackets!)

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

"Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn´t appear to be in CC´s online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn´t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. {Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don´t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.}"

More to come...
  by: CArnold     12/06/2009 07:40 AM     
Some of those quotes clearly require more context and I´ve heard reasonable explanations for a couple of others.

From reading a random selection I am noticing that there is a lot of time put into discussing bad science with fairly detailed explanations as to why it is bad. I´m also getting from this that they wouldn´t get any science done if they had to respond to all the demands for data. In a couple of places it is noted that when they do respond they get a follow up demand to explain it.

I´m not seeing any smoking gun here.
  by: ixuzus     12/06/2009 10:04 AM     
  I´m still waiting for the Iraq wmd-gate  
to be investigated.

And I still wonder why 9/11 was stonewalled for so long and in so many ways.
  by: Kaleid   12/06/2009 12:24 PM     
  Not that logic has anything to do with this  
but scientific data is presented to politicians in a...simplified form which is meant to give them the conclusions of the scientists along with their observations. The same is true of any scientific issue. The data is literally presented to support whatever conclusion was reached; to coerce stubborn people into concern over issues they may not care about.

Ergo, the science and how it is presented to the public are two different things.

I do so like talking to myself.
  by: H. W. Hutchins   12/06/2009 02:21 PM     
Ben, if you had any credibility at all (aka not a biased political hack), you lost it with this one. Since all this "evidence" has been fabricated by these so-called "scientists", then your statement was wrong even before you said it. Go back and re-read what Climategate is all about. If you can´t understand what is meant by withholding data, making up data, mixing data, cherry picking data, hiding data, deleting data (generally lying in general) and quashing those who dissent, then you really shouldn´t be commenting.

Oh, and consensus isn´t science. If real scientists can´t have access to your raw data in order to duplicate your results (remember cold fusion) then your results are unproven and therefore not factual.
  by: adhemar   12/06/2009 11:34 PM     
  don´t forget  
Phil Jones got $22 million in taxpayer money from 1990. so we actually paid him to do all that withholding data, making up data, mixing data, cherry picking data, hiding data, deleting data (generally lying in general) and quashing those who dissent.

Yay us!
  by: djskagnetti     12/07/2009 12:01 AM     
  I think we can all agree on something.  
To hell with naming things _____gate. It´s getting really annoying.
  by: Kolman   12/07/2009 01:08 AM     
Hear hear. It be the media.
  by: H. W. Hutchins   12/07/2009 02:31 AM     
  Yay! CA has trotted out another polling of  
one one thousandth of a percent of Americans and is calling it the opinion of some 305 million people.

Of all the forms of information gathering we have, polls are the most easily skewed. The pollsters have even gotten to the point of stating "XX% of Americans believe XYZ" rather than being honest and claiming "XX% of Americans polled, believe XYZ". Not that would make their polls any more accurate... it would just remove some of the false implication.

I have strong suspicion of AGW and these emails tend to reinforce that suspicion, but some Rasmussen poll is not going to convince me of anything. For one thing, I don´t believe the things I do because I think the majority does and for another, I would have to read a lot more than CA has cherry picked in order to make a learned assessment.

Oh and, Kolman.... I couldn´t agree more!

  by: bbeljefe     12/07/2009 04:08 AM     
Now that you´ve shared your opinion of polls with us, go ahead and ask us if we really give a damn.

Go ahead... Ask.
  by: CArnold     12/07/2009 06:38 PM     
  Hey DJ  
Phil Jones was employed in the United Kingdom. I might just be a political hack, but even *I* know that´s not Minnesota, where you live. You didn´t pay a dime in taxes to fund his research.
  by: Ben_Reilly     12/07/2009 06:48 PM     
  meh, maybe so  
but our tax dollars partially fund the U.N., which used these flawed weather models to base their own work upon in the IPCC (which is why they are investigating it atm.) from there the bs just ran down hill, and our tax dollars go to fund the US versions of Anglia.

if i Were from the UK, i would be absolutely pissed off about it, not that i´m not as it is, but why arent you guys rioting in the streets or at least demanding something be done about this?

soon we will all be paying taxes (more taxes than ever before), and, quite possibly, a great deal more.
  by: djskagnetti     12/08/2009 12:22 AM     
  Because, CA...  
I expect that if someone wants to tell me how they feel about what I think or say, they will do so without my solicitation.

Not to mention, I´ve found that unsolicited responses tend to be more well thought out and less defensive in nature. Granted, not always but, more often than not.

  by: bbeljefe     12/08/2009 03:15 AM     
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: