@djrikki

Quote:

djrikki wrote: @threadtitle Oh yeah I believe in global warming.. haha poppycock.. experiencing the snowiest december since 1981. We was told snowy winters in the UK of old were next to impossible by the GW brigade, but it seems year on year are winters are getting more traditional as the jet stream darts south thanks to solar minima and other contributory factors.

They have sadly started to blame even that on global warmimg/climate change/global climate disruption now. ;\
Soon they will probably scream about how co2 is causing a ice age.

@BrianK
Quote:

That being said there are clearly 'scientists' at the fringe that deny the majority understanding of climate and are seeking their own way. And that's great. However, their work must also live up to the reproduceability and accuracy of the other science. Until their theories are overall more accurate they aren't going to be accepted.

But what about AGW science?? It is only reproduceable in a computer model while real life observations actually contradicts most of the claims. The only so called proof you got is that temperatures have been increasing, sea ice/glaciers retreating a bit which is all entirely normal and have happened again and again over the holocene period. You simply dont know if the current warming is due to natural factors or co2. Past climate history seems to suggest it is NOT due to co2. The only way to know is to wait a few decades and see how things will play out.

Most skeptic or lukewarmer scientists actually admit they dont know all the factors, as it just aint possible with current understanding of climate.
It is AGW side that keeps coming out with insane predictions based on flawed computer models while real observations contradicts them.

Last edited by Tomas on 05-Dec-2010 at 11:07 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

A climatologist is one whose building a working understanding of earth's climate.

And this is the type of honesty I'm looking for and rarely find. Still building.... not complete. How can you be settled on something that's not complete? You can't if you're honest. "Best guess", "most accepted theory amoung....", that I could agree with.

Quote:

There are certainly fringe scientists that appear out of step with the mainstream.

Yeah fringe, like Capernicus and Galileo. Thank the heavens for the fringe too. They've help bring us the real science we know today.

Quote:

Fringe science is an important area but is more often wrong.

Oh come on, your talking as it's some alien being among science when in fact it's the mother of it all practically. What science didn't start out fringe, then mature, grow and then become part of the main stream?

Quote:

However, their work must also live up to the reproduceability and accuracy of the other science. Until their theories are overall more accurate they aren't going to be accepted.

That rule must be applied to all sides equally or it's irrelevant. Not just the "fringe". Are we going to give certain groups a pass? Why? They got some thing right in the past so that means every thing the say from now to infinitium is also correct.... clear, repeatable scientific method for all or you loose and important point of progress... trust.


Quote:

We've seen this over and over again in the history of science. Ideas that more accurately predict the behavior of the world around us win out. Germ Theory, Einsteinian gravity, Plate Tectonics, washing hands to keep clean, and Evolutionary Theory are all ideas which were the minority and eventually advanced to be the major accepted theories due to their ability to better predict the actions of the universe around us then the the theories they upsurped.

Absolutely, you're echoing my comments above.

Quote:

It appears to me those who are called Denialists are less likely to be scientists and more likely to be the public.

Ah, now you're back to that unscientific categorizing again. Should I dismiss the claims of the main stream because there's such a large number of "public" that agree with them? You say half in the US. You want to dismiss the opposing opinion because the other half of the "public" agrees? Not good science. It also leads back to thoughts I made many volumes ago. The process has an inherent problem since illogical irrational humans are involved. And we're back to that trust thing again.

Plaz

@Tomas

Quote:

But what about AGW science?? It is only reproduceable in a computer model while real life observations actually contradicts most of the claims.

It isn't only reproduceable on a computer model. In 1896 the absorption of CO2 was determined and impact of postive warming with the include of increasing CO2 in our atmosphere. They didn't need computers to do it. That's one large area. There are others. Since that time absoption has been better measured in the lab and emperically from ground and satellite. These didn't need computer models to exist. (And of course through later experimentation the work in 1896 was tighten down and is now more accurate)

And if we take on one had the real life observations applied to the current understanding in climatology vs those in the 'global cooling' there are more contradictions on the 'global cooling' ones. (Or even worse a lack of predictablity from the AGW (Anti Global Warmists). ) I posted one such example (within the last couple of pages.) I'll give you science gets it wrong, it's learning afterall. It appears to me with each passing year it is improving (becoming more accurate).

Quote:

is all entirely normal and have happened again and again over the holocene period

Certainly warming and cooling have happened in the past. It's indicative that atmosphereic sensitivities impact the climate. I posted (within the last couple of pages) the work that CO2 was the factor in warming about 40 Million years ago. So on the surface if you want to accept the before reason and apply it now then CO2 is the cause. .... Of course it's not this easy. What happened before is important to understand. The question is what is happening now. If the factors are exactly the same that'll be an interesting point but it is not a necessary point. The current understanding of climate science is that the warming at present is mostly being driven by CO2 released by people. Again we can determine CO2 and amounts released by people without using computers. (Though using computers speeds up the analysis of the atmoshere and increases accuracy.)

Quote:

It is AGW side that keeps coming out with insane predictions based on flawed computer models while real observations contradicts them.

It appears to me from the first IPCC to the last IPCC the predictions have been increasing in accuracy. That's generally an acceptable 'we're on the right path' event. Though if you want evidence of anti-gw science doing the same go back to the example of global cooling predicted for the 2000-2010 era and how that was wrong. (I posted it within the last couple of pages.) Thus, we couldn't say Global Warming is the only one with insane incorrect predictions.

Quote:

The only way to know is to wait a few decades and see how things will play out.

You had accused me of denying cooling if the event happened. Likewise, I feel you too will continue to deny warming after a few warmer decades have passed and in turn ask us to wait a few more decades.... I see this request as disengenious.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Dec-2010 at 04:27 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 06-Dec-2010 at 04:02 AM.

@Plaz

Quote:

How can you be settled on something that's not complete? You can't if you're honest

Yes there will be employement for climatologists for years to come.

And we act all the time on 'unsettled' science. We know Einstein's Gravity doesn't work in every situation, and we launch satellites based on it. Darwin knew nothing of genetics yet his work on evolution was accepted. We don't know the complete mechanisms of Germ Theory, but I bet you still wash your hands after poo.

Quote:

Oh come on, your talking as it's some alien being among science when in fact it's the mother of it all practically.

Fringe science is hugely important, I didn't say it wasn't. I did say it's often wrong, and it is. This is important because getting things wrong is how we learn. Often people think being wrong is something bad. In science it's a good because it weeds out the options.

Quote:

That rule must be applied to all sides equally or it's irrelevant.

I think we agree here. Though note I think you missed 'also' in my sentence. "their work must also live up to the reproduceability " Meaning there is no pass for any groups.

Quote:

Should I dismiss the claims of the main stream because there's such a large number of "public" that agree with them? You say half in the US. You want to dismiss the opposing opinion because the other half of the "public" agrees? Not good science

Certainly I agree that public opinion has no value in establishing the merit of a scientific work.

Let me rephrase. I see Denialist often applied not to scientists but to the public. Skepticism as used with 'Climate Skeptic' is meant as a one who disbelieves in the science. This is a ####ization of the word Skeptic. Skepticism is a process not a position. A true Skeptic is open to the options and applies reason to determine validity of the information they've discovered. 'Climate Skeptic' is one that tries to debunk human caused Climate Change. They've selected a side and lost their critical critique of the issue. They aren't skeptical. Their agenda is one now of politics to Deny the majority scientific consensus. This group is more accurately reflected as Denialists.

@BrianK
Again you are just parroting the same bull you have been parroting all the time.
I already said that i AGREE that co2 causes some warming, but everything points to this effect being alot smaller than the effects from natural cycles. Your side simply assumed that most of the warming was from co2 and not the most active sun in nearly ten THOUSANDS of years.

Also why you keep cherry picking? You know perfectly well that most of the time co2 actually lagged CENTURIES behind temperatures.
I can also cherry pick times with ice ages occurring at a time with many times the co2 level of today.

The warming from a doubling of co2 will most likely be well below 1c judging by the effects of natural cycles in the past and the lack of any significant effect from co2.

So if global temps do drop like we predict over the next 10-20 years will you finally shut up and admit you were wrong? I have a feeling you will believe whatever spin they make up that claims by then that it also causes ice ages..

@BrianK
Quote:

Let me rephrase. I see Denialist often applied not to scientists but to the public. Skepticism as used with 'Climate Skeptic' is meant as a one who disbelieves in the science. This is a ####ization of the word Skeptic. Skepticism is a process not a position. A true Skeptic is open to the options and applies reason to determine validity of the information they've discovered. 'Climate Skeptic' is one that tries to debunk human caused Climate Change. They've selected a side and lost their critical critique of the issue. They aren't skeptical. Their agenda is one now of politics to Deny the majority scientific consensus. This group is more accurately reflected as Denialists.

Yet it turns out that your so called "consensus" is nothing more than a minority.
Most scientists do NOT believe in even the best case scenario with 2c increase from a doubling of co2.

It is you who are the real denialist here who keep ignoring all the studies that contradicts global warming including peer reviewed ones.

But i will just continue to call you a blind faith believer as you continue to throw insults at us.

@Tomas

Quote:

I already said that i AGREE that co2 causes some warming, but everything points to this effect being alot smaller than the effects from natural cycles. Your side simply assumed that most of the warming was from co2 and not the most active sun in nearly ten THOUSANDS of years

Most active sun? What do you mean by this. 2006-2009 was a period of few solar flares. And certainly we can measure with satellites (sorry using computers is the easiest, quickest, and cheapest way) the incoming radiation and heat to the planet. We can also measure, on the ground, the same charactersistics. This develops an understanding of how the sun, and other events in the universe, expose the planet to radiation, heat, etc. A more active sun is important to note and should already be, and is, included in looking at this data.

Quote:

So if global temps do drop like we predict over the next 10-20 years will you finally shut up and admit you were wrong?

Being a true skeptic I have trust that the skeptical system we have in place, science, will over time will become more accurate. Measured temperatures w/ fairly good reliability goes back 125 years. It seems you believe that's not enough data but a decade more will clearly show the results? Now I agree we keep measuring and working on the science until every last iota is sussed out but I see your expection that 10 years will settle the question is guesswork at best. Evolution denialism is occuring nearly 200 years later. I expect in 200 years we'll see Climatological denialism happening still.

Quote:

Yet it turns out that your so called "consensus" is nothing more than a minority.

Look at the science being published it's clear that the variations are felt to be driven by humans, not just natural. That the major factor in this is due to CO2 in the atmosphere. That the risen CO2 is caused by man. Now certainly there are small numbers of scientists that disagree with the above. Remember we're talking consensus not unanimous agreement. It's rare to find unanimous agreement in science.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Dec-2010 at 12:17 PM.

Here you got your so called consensus:
More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claim

And: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/global-warming-ideology-still-on-top-the-science-h/?page=1

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Here you got your so called consensus: More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claim

Last numbers I saw was there were upwards of 36,000 climatologists plus double that number or so assisting. 1K out of 36K is far, far from establishing a consensus in the other direction. And to ensure we're talking the same thing here a consensus is a group of the majority. Dissenters will always exist. You've provided a fair list of the minority of dissent.

The AGW climate model: link

@Tomas

Ukraine to open Chernobyl area to tourists in 2011

Emergency Situations Ministry spokeswoman Yulia Yershova said experts are developing travel routes that will be both medically safe and informative for Ukrainians as well as foreign visitors. She did not give an exact date when the tours were expected to begin.

"There are things to see there if one follows the official route and doesn't stray away from the group," Yershova told The Associated Press. "Though it is a very sad story."

The United Nations Development Program chief Helen Clark toured the Chernobyl plant together with Baloha on Sunday and said she supported the plan because it could help raise money and tell an important lesson about nuclear safety.

"Personally I think there is an opportunity to tell a story here and of course the process of telling a story, even a sad story, is something that is positive in economic terms and positive in conveying very important messages," said Clark, according to her office.

The ministry also said Monday it hopes to finish building a new safer shell for the exploded reactor by 2015. The new shelter will cover the original iron-and-concrete structure hastily built over the reactor that has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse.

The new shell is 345 feet (105 meters) tall, 853 feet (260 meters) wide and 490 feet (150 meters) long. It weighs 20,000 tons and will be slid over the old shelter using rail tracks. The new structure will be big enough to house the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris or the Statue of Liberty in New York.

The overall cost of project, financed by international donors, has risen from $505 million (euro380 million) to $1.15 billion (euro870 million) because of stricter safety requirements, according to Ukrainian officials.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which manages the project, said a final estimate of the project's cost will be released after the French-led consortium Novarka finalizes a construction plan in the next few months.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

Vegas-Area Mine Aims To Replace China

Japan, U.S. Seek Ways To Fill Demand Of Rare Earth Metals

With permits in hand, Colorado-based Molycorp said it can now proceed with upgrading, expanding and restarting its Mountain Pass, Calif., mining site to meet U.S. demand for rare earth metals to compete with China, the primary supplier of the metals. The country has dramatically reduced exports of the metals, the company said.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK Quote:

Measured temperatures w/ fairly good reliability goes back 125 years

Yes, but it's a pity that that record then has to be "adjusted" out of all recognition. Seems a bit odd that the raw data shows no warming (just ups & downs), and the entire warming that has supposedly occured is only seen after all the adjustments that have been made (mostly long after the fact & of course no-one bothers to look for errors going in the opposite direction). AGW fans are unlucky it looks so suspicious, right?

And then all those historic temperature recreations using proxies, which suddenly go wrong when they are applied to anything after 1950 or so. Honest, trees really ARE good thermometers, and aren't at all affect by moisture (nor CO2, humorously enough). And those damn inconvenient archialogical evidence of the world being warmer than today, contradicting our wonderfully accurate proxies, they had no relevance to global temperatures. Especially the Vikings, with greenland being far warmer than today, for hundreds of years, it was weather not climate OK? And the Romans growing grapes in England, totally irrelevant OK? And AGW fans are just very unlucky it looks so suspicious, right?

Then there's the fact that decades of (raw) weather balloon data show that the atmosphere's relative humidity has dropped as CO2 increases, which if true would balance the small warming effect of CO2. Just as you might expect if the Earth had a feedback system to keep CO2's effect in check. Of course we know the Earth isn't so lucky, and it is really down to measurement errors, which all just happen to all go the wrong way, and AGW fans are just SO damn unlucky it looks so suspicious right?

And the lack of any run-away global warming in millions of years of Earth's history, despite CO2 sometimes being far far higher than today, and despite the Earth supposedly being highly sensitive to CO2, which might suggest that the Earth has a feedback system to keep CO2's effect in check, well, let's just brush that under the carpet. If anyone asks, it's due to some difference from todays climate system, which we can't prove right now, but honest it must be there. We KNOW it.

And the fact that there isn't the predicted (and absolutely required by global warming theory) tropospheric temperature hot spot. And of course the explanation is that errors prevent it from being seen. And if instead you use some indirect method (like wind speed measurement) which is supposedly a measure of tropospheric temperature, then you can show that the hot spot is really there, even though direct measurements don't show it. And AGW fans are just so incredibly unbelievably unlucky is looks so suspicious right?

And all those temperature measurement sites in the USA which were removed over several decades (90% or whatever now gine), the fact that only the coldest ones were removed, well, that's just utterly incredibly fantastically stupendously unbelievably unlucky, and not at all suspicious all right? And the fact that all satellite measurements (which coincidentally started since the end of the last cooling cycle) show far lower warming over 30 years than temperature measurement sites, well, that has nothing to do with it, and anyway don't you know how unreliable satellites are?

And those leaked CRU emails, showing some key AGW players plotting to subvert science to keep some (damn holocaust denier) scientists from publishing any anti-AGW stuff, not to mention trading tricks to make AGW look worse than reality. Well, it was all a huge misunderstanding, ok? They didn't really mean what they said. And those AGW top dogs were just so incredibly unbelievably fantastically unlucky it just happened to look like that, in email after email. And anyway, they aren't representative of the rest of the AGW scientists/politicians, who wouldn't *dream* of doing anything like that. Or at least they won't be found out, now they've deleted their incriminating emails, and now that they've given the CRU chaps a clean bill of health (who will hopefully return the back-scratching favour in the future, damn idiots).

And well, I could go on defending AGW like this forever, but perhaps you'd wish I didn't....

Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Dec-2010 at 09:09 PM.
Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Dec-2010 at 09:07 PM.
Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Dec-2010 at 09:02 PM.
Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Dec-2010 at 09:01 PM.
Last edited by ChrisH on 14-Dec-2010 at 08:50 PM.

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

@BrianK

Quote:

Most active sun? What do you mean by this. 2006-2009 was a period of few solar flares. And certainly we can measure with satellites (sorry using computers is the easiest, quickest, and cheapest way) the incoming radiation and heat to the planet. We can also measure, on the ground, the same charactersistics. This develops an understanding of how the sun, and other events in the universe, expose the planet to radiation, heat, etc. A more active sun is important to note and should already be, and is, included in looking at this data.

How many times have we been going over this?? You keep repeating same stuff even though i have explained this many times over the last threads.
The sun has been for decades the most active on AVERAGE since the beginning of holocene period.
Even the weaker cycles in last decades have been above average.
Slight variation in cycle strength wont do much at all when it is still around average or above average. It is only now that we are returning to times of lower activity. The only thing that will affect temperatures significnaly is a long extended minimum like now, with weak maximum. Even with such a weak cycle we will probably not return to pre industrial temps before sometime in next cycle"which is expected to be as weak if not weaker than SC24".
some graph showing reconstructed solar activity

Quote:

Being a true skeptic I have trust that the skeptical system we have in place, science, will over time will become more accurate. Measured temperatures w/ fairly good reliability goes back 125 years. It seems you believe that's not enough data but a decade more will clearly show the results? Now I agree we keep measuring and working on the science until every last iota is sussed out but I see your expection that 10 years will settle the question is guesswork at best. Evolution denialism is occuring nearly 200 years later. I expect in 200 years we'll see Climatological denialism happening still.

Uh?? I have always said that decades dont matter with real picture. It is your side who claim that decades matter. The long term trend over THOUSANDS of years show that we are returning to GLACIAL and have been cooling for thousands of years. The sun only controls the short term fluctuations over decades-century/centuries.
If we cool for a few decades it will however show that your CO2 theory is bust and that sun is the real driver when it comes to short term climate/weather. The real driver of long term changes is continental drifting, maybe cosmic ray/dust changes and milankovich cycles.

Last edited by Tomas on 14-Dec-2010 at 09:06 PM.

@ChrisH

Quote:

Yes, but it's a pity that that record then has to be "adjusted" out of all recognition. Seems a bit odd that the raw data shows no warming

Raw data clearly shows warming. Not only Land based temperatures but balloon and satellite based measures. Stations are checked for quality. Instruments can be in error and people can read them wrong. Strangely enough 'adjusting' the temps results not in a warming effect but a cooling effect. If the data was being manipulated the Climatologists should be smart enough to manipulate it in their favor.

Quote:

Honest, trees really ARE good thermometers, and aren't at all affect by moisture (nor CO2, humorously enough).

You might want to talk to Thomas. He's against the majority consensus of climatologists today. But, he told us how CO2 increases the growth of plants and if we 'lost a bit' of CO2 the plants would stop growing. I think he's on your side. Perhaps you both can some agreement on how plants grow.

Quote:

. Especially the Vikings, with greenland being far warmer than today, for hundreds of years, it was weather not climate OK?

The evidence you cited was unveiled by receeding glaciers. Most of the Greenland evidence was discovered about a decade ago. It was therefore uncovered more then 10 years ago. In the last decade the glaciers have proceeded northward to areas where no evidence exists. So certainly this evidence is relevant. Though please don't stop there. We have more examples of this such as 7000 year old mammoth unveiled in Canada and methane of more than 10,000 years old being released in Russia. So receeding glaciers are clearly revealing much older archaeological evidence than a 400 year old Viking settlement.

Quote:

And the Romans growing grapes in England, totally irrelevant OK?

Again clearly important. And again look at the other similar evidence. In the early 90s Sweden began growing grapes. If the northern zone marked by English grapes in the MWP is an important indicator of climate wouldn't the ability of today to grow grapes even further north also be imporant?

Quote:

And the lack of any run-away global warming in millions of years of Earth's history

Forgetting of course the impact CO2 to bring the earth out of a snowball phase.

Quote:

And all those temperature measurement sites in the USA which were removed over several decades (90% or whatever now gine), the fact that only the coldest ones were removed, well, that's just utterly incredibly fantastically stupendously unbelievably unlucky, and not at all suspicious all right?

Watts was one of the leads in this purposal. The problem is Watt's didn't prove this true. He made an assumption and assumed it to be true. As it would happen someone actually did the statistical comparison of pre and post station measure removals. LINK You can go on to note that satelitte trends are positive also. So this removal of land based measures was proven untrue statistically and untrue from a set of data measured in a completely different way.

Quote:

And the fact that all satellite measurements (which coincidentally started since the end of the last cooling cycle) show far lower warming over 30 years than temperature measurement sites, well, that has nothing to do with it, and anyway don't you know how unreliable satellites are?

I agree the satellites show a warming trend that's less agressive. There's about a .13-.18 degree range for satellites and a .16-.28 degree range for land based temps. Though you'll falling in the same trap as most of the GWers you are hating on. Some GWers accept the land based temps, the anti-GWers accept the satellite temps. The problem here is how to truly determine which one is more or less accurate then the other measure. Could be a land temp issue, could be a satellite temp issue, and of course it could be they are both right and we need to do more science to figure out why. You do realize they measure temps at different points don't you? Land based are a few feet off the ground, satellites are a few miles into the atmosphere. If the measures were exactly the same I'd worry even more.

Quote:

Or at least they won't be found out, now they've deleted their incriminating emails, and now that they've given the CRU chaps a clean bill of health

They deleted emails idea is simply silly. Perhaps they did delete emails at CRU. However, when the illegal and invasion of privacy theft of emails happened this copied the existing emails before they could be deleted. They'll forever live on the internet or in some Denier's memory stick saved on the shelf just in case they're needed. And no the emails didn't prove anything in the way of purposeful manipulation.

@BrianK
Quote:

Raw data clearly shows warming. Not only Land based temperatures but balloon and satellite based measures. Stations are checked for quality. Instruments can be in error and people can read them wrong. Strangely enough 'adjusting' the temps results not in a warming effect but a cooling effect. If the data was being manipulated the Climatologists should be smart enough to manipulate it in their favor.

I think everyone agrees that it has been warming for the last decades. The disagreement is about how much we have been warming and if most is due to natural causes or co2.
Quote:

You might want to talk to Thomas. He's against the majority consensus of climatologists today. But, he told us how CO2 increases the growth of plants and if we 'lost a bit' of CO2 the plants would stop growing. I think he's on your side. Perhaps you both can some agreement on how plants grow.

There is no real consensus among climate scientists. The only thing they agree on is that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that we have warmed a bit. Most climate scientists dont believe in even the best case scenario of 2c from a doubling of co2.
There are also thousands of scientists now who believe most of the warming is from natural causes.
Btw.. Would think you knew my name by now...

@Tomas

Quote:

I think everyone agrees that it has been warming for the last decades.

Apparently not ChrisH: "Seems a bit odd that the raw data shows no warming "

Quote:

There is no real consensus among climate scientists.

Alas Tomas there is. The agreement is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that CO2 is a present significant factor in climate change, and that man is the major contributitor to CO2. Not only is a consensus made up of Climatologists, reviewing the publish work also is indicitive of this condition.

Quote:

Btw.. Would think you knew my name by now

Apologies Tomas is a very non-standard name for this area of the world. I know quite a few Thomases. I hope you can excuse the misaligned pointers in the database. I'll try to do better.

@Tomas

Another Climategate? Fox News orders newsmen to make statements against Climate Change. And you told us there was no news on the anti-climate change side. There is in the USA.

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Dec-2010 at 08:16 PM.

@BrianK

You're stretching on that one. I read the mail.

Quote:

From: Sammon, Bill To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009 Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data... ...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

We have an email with instructions to refrain from asserting warming OR cooling without including desenting opinions. THEN we have a pages long biased article trying to tell us what the mail REALLY means. How again does this fit into your scientific method?

One bit that can look bad taken out of context... "It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts", until you add back the other bit.... " has warmed OR cooled". Pretty much telling them to include all sides of the debate. The problem with that is...?

Plaz