Climate Change: Here's what a lie really looks like

[whell]

A lie is a willful act to change material facts or evidence, typically in a way that gives some artificial advantage to the individual making the change.

Here's what a lie really looks like.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html

Of much more serious significance, however, is 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. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

The global warming crowd has continued to compromise themselves. Its truly sad.

Is the earth warming? Since the sources of evidence are subject to manipulation, not only is the case harder to make because many of these "individuals of science" and the records they maintain have credibility issues but what then to we actually make of the data? The question gets much harder to objectively answer.

As it always has for me, it calls into question to motivation of those who want to use the levers of government to stifle honest debate on the issue, insist that such warming must be caused largely by human activity, and drain off precious national resources in their crusade.

The left loves to play the rhetorical game and accuse their political opponents of being "anti science". But is making a leap of faith based on highly questionable data any more scientific?

[Boreas]

As you yourself were so eager to point out in another thread yesterday, it's an op ed.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

As you yourself were so eager to point out in another thread yesterday, it's an op ed.

No, yesterday was a blog, which is a bit lower on the pecking order of journalism. As you yourself were quick to point out yesterday, these are still facts. In this case, its also not an editorial. It is in the "News" section.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

No, yesterday was a blog, which is a bit lower on the pecking order of journalism. As you yourself were quick to point out yesterday, these are still facts. In this case, its also not an editorial. It is in the "News" section.

All true, whell. You caught me but does this mean you've revised your standards for authoritativeness? After all, the principle sources in that op ed were previous posts from a blogger.

And, regardless of where the article is positioned, it's an op ed. I mean, read the fucking thing! Careful use of quotation marks around words like "adjustments", putting loaded language like "fiddling" right in the "biggest science scandal ever" right in the head and referring to a respected and accomplished scientist as a "fanatic".

Of course, none of this is in the least bit surprising. After all, The Telegraph is the UK equivalent to the Moonie Times.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Of course, none of this is in the least bit surprising. After all, The Telegraph is the UK equivalent to the Moonie Times.

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid, but such is the state of print journalism in much of the UK, and the U.S. is moving fast in that direction. However, once your rant abates you might note that the author of the article in the OP has been following this for a while, posted several stories on it. Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

Neither new nor proven and often, as with the "East Anglia University scandal", totally debunked.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid,..... the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

At least you concede the point that the Telegraph is little more than a rag better suited to grocery store check out lines.

Your other point is illustrative that PT Barnum was correct in observations re. society at large.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid, but such is the state of print journalism in much of the UK, and the U.S. is moving fast in that direction. However, once your rant abates you might note that the author of the article in the OP has been following this for a while, posted several stories on it. Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

This begs the question of why you constantly cite articles and op eds from the worst of what you acknowledge is a bad lot. I'm thinking of The Telegraph, of course, and also the Daily Mail, the Washington Times, Breitbart, Newsmax and CNS. Seems your efforts are directed more toward serving an agenda and less toward promoting truth and honesty. I take this as a clear indication of your overall lack of honesty.

[Boreas]

Sorry to keep going back to this little fewmet but I keep finding little gems of irrelevance and dishonesty.

Originally Posted by whell

I'll grant you that The Telegraph is more of a tabloid, but such is the state of print journalism in much of the UK, and the U.S. is moving fast in that direction. However, once your rant abates you might note that the author of the article in the OP has been following this for a while, posted several stories on it. Also, the angle that some climatologists are cooking the books on global warming studies is not new.

Of course I noticed that and I found it pretty pathetic that the author needed to cite himself as a source. Some journalist!

More importantly, what significance do you attach to the fact that this guy has been spouting the same nonsense for a long time? To me, it speaks to nothing more than Goebbels' dictum about the "big lie".

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

No, yesterday was a blog, which is a bit lower on the pecking order of journalism. As you yourself were quick to point out yesterday, these are still facts. In this case, its also not an editorial. It is in the "News" section.

Why am I not surprised his sole source 'Homewood' is a science denying blogger?

This isn't journalism no matter how he dresses it up.