This Page

has been moved to new address

Again: Why American Media CANNOT Be Trusted

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: Again: Why American Media CANNOT Be Trusted

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Again: Why American Media CANNOT Be Trusted

FOURTEEN DAYS after the release of the UK e-mails which are now called ClimateGate, and the American media networks of ABC, CBS, NBC have purposely not reported the story.

What further information does the public need in order to realize that the American Fourth Estate 1) does not wish to truly inform; 2) conforms to the most liberal of biases and 3) purposely excludes stories and information contrary to their pre-programmed Leftists agendas.

Why, then, should any American media interest receive even one dollar from the U.S. government when it is proven, again and again, that not only can't they do their reporting jobs, they purposely withhold necessary information from the public?

Continentally, a US scientist says that, like the UK ClimateGate, NASA is withholding information about so-called Global Warming. NASA has repeatedly refused to honor FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for two years.

The nation of India has already stated it will refuse to sign any agreement placing limitations on emissions.

The problem is that lots of people go around saying that the climate change we see is a result of human activity. That is a very dangerous claim,” Parliamentary Speaker and former Finance Minister Thor Pedersen (Lib) tells DR.

And finally, Nobel Prize winner Al Gore has canceled, at the last moment, his speech for the Copenhagen Global Warming summit on December 16th. Why?

Could it POSSIBLY be because he is ill-armed to verbally handle the confrontations or even questions logically to be asked but upon his presence on stage?

I submit: yes. He is petrified at having to answer even the most basic of questions from anyone with a curious mind.

Once again, Your American Media in the tank.



Blogger Z said...

Gore is such a spineless wimp...he made his gazillions and he's DONE...

Did you hear that some want his Oscar to be given back?
And, what do we do now with the small school children leftwinger indoctrinating teachers have scared to death with their warnings of NYC being under 3' of water soon? Kids are SCARED TO DEATH because of GORE.

And, by the way...can I have my #@$(@#*$& regular LIGHT BULBS BACK NOW?

Fri Dec 04, 08:40:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Z: yes. Since it turns out, naturally, that much of his book and his resulting movie is INaccurate. Huh. Imagine that. Only took, what, FIVE years for that kind of realization?

Funny you should mention that. I went to Costco in Sacramento, Fornicalia tonight before I came up the hill to the cabin from work, and I was looking to see what kinds of replacement bulbs I would find. Guess what? Only the MOST TOXIC squiggly bulbs possible.

Let's see, in terms of Saving the Environment:

- MTBE added to Fornicalia fuel: toxic, worse cure than the problem;

- The Toyota Prius: actually more damaging to the environment than a Hummer H2;

- Low capacity toilets with lesser pressure: requiring subsequent flushes sometimes doubling or tripling, "per visit," the original gallon rating due to INefficiency;

- Mandated CFLs: NEW! Now with Added MERCURY for greater TOXICITY and lesser efficiency!

Religious Leftists: do you want to REALLY help your environment? Slit your wrists and take yourself OUT. HOW do you sleep at night knowing that YOU are a PRIME contributor to C02 emissions??

As you drive, of course, your piece of polluting crap VW Transporter, 1983 Escort, 75 Corolla, Willys Jeep.


Fri Dec 04, 10:37:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

And, oh yes, let us not forget ETHANOL. Responsible for the desecration and ruination of many Third World countrys' abilities to acquire WHEAT and other forms of American GRAIN.

So, Religious Leftists, how do you feel about Ethanol being even LESS energy efficient per cylinder stroke, resulting in LESS horsepower in an engine, with American farmers FORCED into converting their fields to grain from other profitable crops, mandating that we get MORE of our vegetables from FOREIGN countries?

Here's the bottom line: only the Religious Left believe that Ethanol actually makes a difference. You may as well jerk off to a photo of a pine cone before you go to sleep at night, for all the good that Ethanol does. But I suppose it makes you FEEEEEEL better e-MO-tionally.


Fri Dec 04, 10:43:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God helps those who help themselves........................................

Sat Dec 05, 01:36:00 AM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's a reason it hasn't been reported: it's righty BS!

ClimateGate: The 6 Most Dubious Claims About The Supposed "Global Warming Hoax."

As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public."

Sat Dec 05, 09:25:00 AM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

WK: thanks for taking the time to visit and the time to comment. And you're quite correct. With the exception that the Demorats and Religious Left wish to help themselves to bountiful portions of YOUR wallet. And facts and science and alternate theories be damned.

DB: and I bet you still believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. WE'RE ALL DOOMED! HuffPo has as much veracity to the rest of the world as Fox News has to you.


Sat Dec 05, 04:06:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Write the letter to your great grandchildren if you don't believe. See how you're thought of in generations to come. My guess: a moron.

Sat Dec 05, 09:43:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wtf is the 'religious left?' Man, you guys do like to project your own foibles.

Sat Dec 05, 09:44:00 PM PST  
Blogger Three Score and Ten or more said...

Last night on BBS there was a story about the "steps" the United Nations is going to take regarding those who spread "propaganda" opposing the clear infomation showing that the world is warming and it's our fault. Watch out Blo Zep the UN is gonna get you if you don't watch out.

Sun Dec 06, 11:09:00 AM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

et's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Sun Dec 06, 02:11:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's the Union of Concerned Scientists on this issue? Politicizing the science, of course.

Sun Dec 06, 02:11:00 PM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

AGW enthusiasts have a problem: the data dropped out of the hypothosis.

The first major change was not the EA CRU but the NASA Goddard records which were found to have a systemic error in the way the systems calculated the data covering the years of the late 1990's to 2007. This is covered in 16 AUG 2007 issue of GEOTIMES, and this deals not just with US datasets but with many foreign ones as well. Any temperature data processed by NASA Goddard during that period up to their acknowledging the problem and needing to reprocess datasets, then needs to be looked at skeptically.

In a 2007 NOAA published a paper on Mean Sea Level covering the contentious 1990's and did an overall heat study from known datasets from the 1950's. That was a follow-up paper to one at the American Geophysical Union by Douglas, and done as an independent study. MSL was not rising but falling by the end of the 1990's and the overall graph fits with known global variations of +/- 4" that derive from 20th century global measurements. That study also points out the modern GRACE and ARGO arrays as now more accurately tracking MSL than ground stations (the first from orbit the second from the sea itself).

The NOAA paper also tracked the long term decline of heat in the oceans since the 1950's. As over 3/4ths of the planet is covered by water, one would expect global oceanic temps to rise, not fall, yet just the opposite is seen. Worse still is the ARGO array of buoys drop down to 20m below sea level and take readings for a number of days then upload those to research facilities via satellite. That array has seen a steady drop at 20m below sea level since the system first started coming online in the mid-1990's.

Also before EA CRU was the analysis of weather station placement in the US and the Urban Heat Zone Effect. That analysis is done via people going to the locations of weather stations, taking GIS based pictures and uploading them to a centralized, open source clearinghouse. As the findings come in, the data is shocking: weather stations with airport tarmacs all around them, stations by HVAC exhausts, major housing developments on what was once suburban or rural land. Those readings have to be understood as being local, not global, in nature and treated as such. There is much to be said for human caused warming in cities and the costs in fuel that incurs... but that is not AGW.

This was before the data dump from EA CRU, and that set of documents confirms that EA CRU has had an agenda to push an insular form of science akin to Lysenkoism, complete with government buy-in (from multiple governments) to allow that in-group to attack those questioning their research and seeking their data. If EA CRU had been on the up and up they would have released their data starting in the early 1990's. Now we find their original data is gone, their datasets corrupted by interim calculations that no one can replicate, computer code so scrambled that no one can figure it out, and a complete lack of transparency on the fact that their datasets are in such a state as will require a complete, and thorough, regathering of source data on a global basis. We have not seen such a collusion between scientists and politicians since the USSR and Lysenkoism.

I stand where I have always stood once it was revealed that EA CRU and many others on the AGW side had embargoed the data: show me the data FIRST. I can sub-set it, analyze it and do my own procedures by the book to make sure of the integrity of the datasets and their processing. If you can't gin up the RAW DATA then you are hiding something and not doing science.

Show me the data.

Mon Dec 07, 06:46:00 AM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists
Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change, aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Mon Dec 07, 07:01:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

The IPCC has long and deep connections to the EA CRU and is deeply suspect due to those connections. In particular members of the EA CRU have used the IPCC to cut off critics and pressure journals not to publish data criticizing the IPCC, EA CRU and NASA/Goddard. Members of EA CRU in their emails have put forward that they were willing to change what they considered valid journals based on the journals publishing criticism, so that even long standing journals that have NOT changed their peer review policies would be in jeapordy.

That is NOT how science works and the IPCC cannot even explain the changes in its findings between 1990 and 2001 as the 1990 data in no way correlates with the published 2001 data in regards to mean global temperature, particularly for the 1950-1989 years. No in in the IPCC has ever explained how their work has changed so greatly and ignored the previous work published by that group.

The IPCC has relied on both EA CRU and NASA/Goddard and cooperated highly with the in-group as indicated by the messages between them. Until they address the direct data problems, the larger sets of data generated in the criticisms of such things as the Siberian tree ring analysis and the direct temperature readings from ARGO, the IPCC will be stuck pushing a hypothesis with no data to back it as the delimited datasets used by the researchers that contribute to the AGW hypothesis have either: a) lost their data, b) corrupted their source data with processed data, c) not considered much larger datasets particularly those used in their crtic's research, d) addressed the direct buoy and satellite data, e) explain how some of their own data before processing directly contradicts their processed results and no longer correlates with it in any way, shape or form.

You do NOT get the coldest year between 1 and 2000AD the middle of the Medieval Warm Period. Yet that is exactly what the AGW graphs show. Even worse is carbon dioxide levels going up and global temps going down which would be the case if prior work before AGW was correct, that is a lag between temps and carbon dioxide and that temps lead carbon dioxide, not the other way around.

The call by ESR and others to get the data processing algorithms out in the open and critiqued by the open source community is valid and should be done by ALL researchers in ALL sciences that deviate from standard analysis packages.

Global warming has a problem: the data backing it dropped out from under the papers. When that happens you must reanalyze the data and the papers must go on hold as their results are suspect, to say the least. Those works do not stand any longer without data. And anyone who depends on those papers and those datasets is not performing a service to science, research or society and loses more credibility every day they do so.

I've been through this before with Alvarez and he and his son got one of the best global datasets from multiple researchers at unaffiliated institutions to back their work. Their work revolutionized geology. AGW can't hold a candle to the quality, quantity and diversity of work that the Alvarez's have gotten. Their hypothesis has proven right at every turn and is now not only a Theory but the default for the K-T extinction. That is the quality I expect for such extra-ordinary claims and it has been done. I have yet to see such quality, depth of research, quantity of research, addressing of the critics and actual confirmation of expectations for AGW.

But then the Alvarez's were amazing as a team.


Not so much.

Mon Dec 07, 05:30:00 PM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The IPCC was funded almost entirely through grants from Ted Turner's billion dollar UN donation.

...and Ted's money spreaders primarily funded the more "alarming" science that would tend to discover and/or support an AGW hypothesis.

Tue Dec 08, 05:34:00 AM PST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To believe that the IPCC was in ANY way "politically impartial" to the science outcome would be a GROSS mistake.

Tue Dec 08, 05:36:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Now we find that after the EA CRU dataset being corrupted, the NASA/Goddard dataset being corrupted that the NOAA/GHCN has been corrupted. By trying to 'homogenize' data, each of the datasets has put in place a system that has increasing temperatures built into it when the actual ground stations show no such increase in temps. New Zealand may seem a bit out of the way, but it is an island Nation and would show effects of AGW faster than continental Nations as the oceans would have to be the leading trigger for AGW.

That is not the case with New Zealand, and going back to just get the raw data, graph it and compare that to the NOAA dataset demonstrates that not only has the data been manipulated, but grossly so. There was no reason to 'adjust' nor 'homogenize' that ground station's record. And it is a vital one as it would be an indicator of increasing oceanic temps if AGW were true. And as it is at the southerly end of Oceania, it gets the Pacific, local seas as its drivers.

And as the 'homogenization' and 'adjustments' were done for more than just NZ, the entire dataset is now suspect.

That was the last refuge of 'proof' of AGW. Or even just GW. It cannot be trusted, nor any papers developed from it. All the work done to that must now go and a full, unadjusted dataset from all groundstations performed from their original logs. Tampering with data is more than just lying with it: it is destroying the trust that others have in the data and it has wasted the years of gathering it that was done in good faith that the original data would be KEPT SAFE.

Wed Dec 09, 08:16:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home