Lawrence Solomon: Newsweek’s retractable article | FP Comment | Financial Post

“Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done,” reads the headline in Newsweek this weekend, in a column over the latest controversy in the global warming debate. The headline, and the article beneath it, are so inaccurate that Newsweek should retract them.

For starters, no newspaper that the column describes retracted any claims about Climategate, the scandal that hit the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last November when private emails showed, among other things, that all of the IPCC’s temperature data was suspect. The newspaper retractions – all two of them, by the UK’s Sunday Times and a much earlier change of heart by a small German daily — dealt with Amazongate, one of the many scandals that followed Climategate.

The Legal Disclaimers Behind the Climate Science | MND Skeptic

When it suits their purpose, the EPA portrays the IPCC as the authoritative last word on climate change. On other occasions, the EPA's legal department carefully advises us that the IPCC's accuracy can't be guaranteed.

ABC The Drum - Gillard's trashing of Kevin07 has only just begun

If you listen to the polls, and Julia Gillard does, you can assume the abandonment of the emissions trading scheme - effected back in April, when Newspoll went south at the angle of a Himalayan goat-track - was a significant instance of way-losing.

And where did the relevant players stand, on the trashing of the ETS?

Gillard: For.

Rudd: Against.

Ms Gillard has never denied this, but she has done little to dispel the popular perception that identifies the dithering on climate change as Kevin Rudd's.

The Greenhouse Effect: Incorrect Science by Richard F. Yanda, Ph.D. | Climate Realists

It must be pointed out that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse gas”; the name implies that somehow a gas can duplicate the physical characteristics of a pane of glass. Gases do not behave like solids, particularly in the atmosphere where moving air masses is the norm. The use of the greenhouse analogy is misleading and is scientifically incorrect. It is not acceptable to use an analogy for a physical concept that misleads and misinforms under the guise of making the ideas more easily understood. The term “Greenhouse Effect” and “greenhouse gas” should be dropped from the discussion.