Climategate revisited.

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This is BBC radio four looking back at climategate in a recent programme. What all the repercussions, and ramifications have been, it is very interesting, and lasts a half-hour.

www.bbc.co.uk...


It is a pretty candid programme, and since the BBC in general has been very pro-climate change pretty well balanced. It is also refreshing to hear one expert, Paul Dennis, also UoE, remarking that among those opposed to the climate change hypothesis, are not 'Whacko's' or deniers but intelligent people who have a different conclusion from the same sets of data, he calls for both sides to temper their behavior. All well and good, but there are still some questions that are not taken up directly by the programme, either because they didn't know, but more likely because the programme doesn't challenge anybody in the programme, and just bringing Climatgate up to date.

The first voice you will from those directly involved will be New York based NASA scientist, Gavin Schmidt's, he is the one who discovered the hacking as it was ongoing. You will hear him remark,"It was quite clear that the university had been hacked" (presumably the devil was in the detail) yet this same guy sent an e-mail to one Lucia Liljegren as follows,

' Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:48:21 -0500
From: Gavin Schmidt
To: lucia liljegren
Subject: a word to the wise

Lucia, As I am certain you are aware, hacking into private emails is very illegal. If legitimate, your scoop was therefore almost certainly obtained illegally (since how would you get 1000 emails otherwise). I don’t see any link on Jeff-id’s site, and so I’m not sure where mosher got this from, but you and he might end up being questioned as part of any investigation that might end up happening. I don’t think that bloggers are shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so. Just my twopenny’s worth

Gavin '

He first remarks "If legitimate" yet he already knows that the e-mails are true, since a couple of days before, he says so in the programme where I have quoted. The rest of his e-mail seems like some attempt to put the lid on everything, and very curiously worded, he was not being candid.

The police gave up on the criminal investigation this year, but they don't rule out a whistleblower entirely, or vested interests, but it is not clear as to what they actually thought of the e-mails. The University of Essex made the statement that there was nothing conspiratorial in the e-mails, that does not mean that the public interest has been served.

More reading here,

wattsupwiththat.com...




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Unexpectedly I have come across more examples of what can be considered, 'hiding the sausage' in This Guardian story of the BBC's atitude toward 'climate change' along with Jeremy Paxton's very damning and sarcastic outburst about BBC impartiality in 2010,

"I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.
I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago. But it strikes me as very odd indeed that an organisation which affects such a high moral tone cannot be more environmentally responsible"
The guardian article,

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

A lot of the hoo haa goes back to a 2006 seminar which included 28 scientists and the BBC with the result that many people think that the BBC left the neutral ground, (where they should be bound) and became 'pro' climate change, and that is what the Guardian article is pointing out citing different programmes that have a bias.

To bring things up to date, the latest news is that Tony Newbery's of 'Harmless sky' blog FOI request for the 28 scientists at the seminar to be named, and objected to by the BBC, was turned down by what appears to be a couple of lay judges. More reading here,

ccgi.newbery1.plus.com...

This article from the commentator gives some insight as to who these people were,

www.thecommentator.com...
edit on 12-11-2012 by smurfy because: Links.





new topics
 
2

log in

join