Monday, November 23, 2009

Amazing Revkin Hard at Work | GlobalWarming.org
On Friday the New York Times‘ house global warming author Andy Revkin, reporting on the breaking (Revkin would prefer it be braking) global Climategate scandal, said repercussions “continue to unfold” and that “there’s much more to explore, of course.”

So what has Sherlock Andy, Warmth Detector focused on since then? Yesterday he noted a study on Antarctic ice loss that comes with “substantial uncertainty” and a “CO2toon,” and then he elevated from Reader Comments at his original post the views of University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who bemoaned the CRU “cyber-attack.”
Global Warming: Can we Get an Apology Now? | Chicago Daily Observer
For the last few years, many of us have been screaming from the frozen mountaintops that global warming is a farce intended to make lots of money for those that are warning of ocean covered coasts and melting ice sheets.
...
What has been frustrating are Republicans who claim that those on the right side (I contend that in this case "right" means correct) of the global warming argument are turning away young voters. I don't know how many conversations that I've had with Republicans who tell me that if we hug the "skeptic" message on global warming, we risk being viewed as an old fuddy-duddy party.

Really?? Is that your final answer? Care to change that before I continue the rest of this article? Last chance.
Hackers leak climate change e-mails from key research unit, stoke debate on global warming | StarTribune.com
[By DAVID STRINGER , Associated Press] LONDON - Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.
How does Stringer know that computer hackers (plural) did this?  How does he know that anyone broke into a server to get the files?  How does he know that this wasn't an inside job?

No comments: