Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[govols/cc]

I don't know, China has us by the balls? Are you saying there's a global communist science conspiracy?

No, china & many other countries don't give a damn about global warming or the theory of it. They do what they want & say to hell with the US. How are we gonna fix a global "problem" we can't control?

 

[Obsessed]

Nope we will deplete our fossil fuels in a few hundred years. The sun still has a few billion left.



Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas. It's a natural feedback -- the higher the temperature the more water vapor will be in the air. The big difference between the carbon cycle and water cycle is that water returns to earth as rain and has a relatively short cycle. CO2 is absorbed by plants, eventually becomes dead organic matter and after millions of years maybe it becomes a fossil fuel. When we burn it the majority of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time - it has nowhere to go. Removing water vapor first makes no sense. Not sure if serious

Negative on the fossil fuel depletion in 200-300 years

 

[82_VOL_83]

Did you slip and faceplant on the sidewalk or something?

I like Knoxville for the record. It's still home. Go Vols

Hey, you were the one that said you didn't miss us backwards ass folks. Take your metrosexual ass out to liberal land, smoke some legal weed, marry your boyfriend and enjoy your life. I really wish you well. Just don't come back. I too left TN after school. I very QUICKLY learned that I wanted back in E. Tenn is the worst kind of way. Took me 16 years to get back. I have had to leave again but won't ever be further away than 4 or so hours again.

You can't make a broad statement about not liking the people here, ask anyone else if they left Tennessee (fishing for someone to back up your insult), and then when no one bites, say, "Oh, I really like Tennessee, it's muh home". We see through that little one.

I don't give one shiite what "climate scientist" say about the difference in weather prediction and climate science. IT IS ALL THE SAME. They can't do one worth a shiite so they make up a big pack of bs lies about why they are different and proceed to make prognostications about weather patterns 50, 100, or 200 years from now when NO ONE will be around to call bull**** on them. Your academia has you just a jaded as half the under 30 educated crowd on here. I got my second degree and went to work ready to set the world on fire with the rest of my peers. It took us about 3 years to realize, we didn't know shiit when we came in and we still didn't know much more after 3 years. But at 23, you won't understand that much........but you will, maybe.

 

[hog88]

Nope we will deplete our fossil fuels in a few hundred years.

I thought you said you work in energy exploration? I took that as petroleum/gas exploration. Guess I was wrong, because if you did you would know this statement is false.

 

[Grand Vol]

The Greeks knew the earth is round over 2000 years ago (they even knew its diameter) and likewise heliocentrism and many other discoveries were known by the scientific community long before they were accepted by the public (I wonder why?). There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that global warming is real and it’s primarily due to the increase in greenhouse gases. There are several independent lines of reasoning that show our distinct fingerprint on climate change.

Okay, let's lay this point to rest then. We both agree the Earth's climate is changing (I refuse to call it global warming especially in light of recent winter activity over the past few years). I'll agree that greenhouse gasses are a likely contributor to that.

Now what made it happen in the past? The warming and cooling trends? Greenhouse gasses? Were humans responsible for it then as well? And this is the point that is often ignored.

Forecasting weather is an entirely different beast from modeling climate. You imply that the science isn’t settled but that’s simply not true.

Before I start, you probably should look at at least finding other sites out there as opposed to one singularly slanted view. Having said that to say this... the point I was making is the fact that the science of modeling weather forecasts is a fairly complex interaction of math and science. And more often than not, they are correct, but is still a best guess based on the study of patterns of the past and predicted conditions for the future. And this is on a small scale. And again, the modeling of climate change is far more complex, far more factors to consider and far more likely to be guesswork based on the conditions they think were viable at the time.

Science is absolutely open and free sharing of knowledge.

Science, just like most things these days, has become hugely economic. Who has the most grants, the most funding, most support, gets the most research. And more often than not, that knowledge is proprietary depending on the field. So no, most of the time the knowledge is not freely shared or open until the originating projects chooses to do so. It has become a cutthroat business just like everything else these days.

There’s plenty of research that’s published that’s available to the general public, and much more if you subscribe to journals or have access to them through your school or company.

I beg to differ. Why is it thousands of emails were stolen some years ago that showed a completely different approach to the climate change subject and why was data within those circles suppressed? How am I supposed to "take those out of context" when it shows that people in the science community are suppressing information that should have been put out? And again, I step back to the point that this has ceased to be science and is simply nothing more than a political agenda where we might not get the best information.

And furthermore, why is it that the science has been overlooked in instances such as the government mandating the use of cellulosic biofuel which at the time didn't exist outside of a lab? It was nowhere near ready for production and yet it was mandated for use and fines would be levied against companies for not using it.

So why is science ignored (yet again)?

That said scientists are not great at communicating with the public, myself included.

So now would not be the best time to bring up Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan?

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

And what’s so bad about investing in alternative energy and decreasing our dependence on hostile nations for fossil fuels? We’re going to have to do it when we run out of fossil fuels here in the next 100 years anyways. I figure I’m the last generation that can ride the oil gravy train.

I have zero issues with alternative energy and wholeheartedly support it. I think wind, solar, hydro and most of all nuclear are efficient means of providing the power needs for our nation. Having said that to say this...

The problem with climate change has become political in nature. The Kyoto Protocols for example were largely politicized by the nations that entered into agreement. However, it was largely symbolic since it omitted 80% of the world and didn't hold them into account. And basically the Protocol has largely died out and there is no great move to replace it. Why is that exactly?

Furthermore, as a member of the fossil fuel industry, does it not concern you the political angle climate change has taken? That science is no longer the discovery of information and instead is the masking of data that doesn't support my position and only one side of this is heard. Does it not concern you that senior EPA officials are getting their talking not from scientists, but from activist groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club? Does it not concern you that the government is attempting to shut down an entire industry (coal) even when it means that power generating capability is not being replaced on our aging and every strained grid?

And the problem lies in the political agenda where science is ignored.

Does it not concern you that the whole concept of raising people's awareness of climatic change has become so poisonous and vile it already brings out ill feelings when the subject is mentioned? And why is that?

 

[Grand Vol]

BTW it’s not a party line. You may have missed this because it was a page or two ago but I’m conservative and I’m a geoscientist in resource exploration. None of my peers doubt AGW. And what’s so bad about investing in alternative energy and decreasing our dependence on hostile nations for fossil fuels? We’re going to have to do it when we run out of fossil fuels here in the next 100 years anyways. I figure I’m the last generation that can ride the oil gravy train.

Now let's talk about the alternative fuels for both power production and vehicles and the agenda behind them...

Ethanol. Decent fuel that lowers emissions, however, not as efficient as gasoline when it comes as power requirements. And lately has been only slightly cheaper (about ten cents a gallon in the OKC area) than gasoline yet at a rate of about 6-8 MPG less than traditional 90/10 gasoline/ethanol mix. And also, production of ethanol, while increased, does more to raise the price of food crops and take away arable land than traditional drilling. So we have a choice, cheaper food and gasoline = bad for the environment or more expensive and less amounts of food and the same price = good for the environment. So financially, I'm paying more to fill up my tank and getting less MPG which in turn means I use more ethanol and in turn more farm land gets turned from crop production to ethanol production and raising the price of food and my wallet gets screwed two ways instead of one. Most people will call that a no brainer and continue with what's cheapest.

Bio diesel. Again, a renewable resource and don't get me started on the fact (as you should well know) that the refinement of diesel is nowhere near what is needed for gasoline in the hierarchy of petroleum products. And yet we fall back into the food prices rising. And in increased populations, this will have an effect of lowering the overall ability to produce foods. However, efforts are being made into researching different options for this like the algae production that looks promising to help offset the need for arable land production of bio materials. But until said time, we can't all run cooking grease and have to supplement that with fossil fuels.

And why is it that diesel is now more expensive than gasoline especially knowing it has way less refinement needs?

Electric vehicles. I think there is promise here and great inroads have been made in recent years to not only help in the infrastructure of recharging these vehicles, but in how far they can travel. Price point is still not where it should be in order to compete in the market against traditional combustion engines, but this could change as well. Having said that to say this, in a world of increased electrical vehicles, there has to be more electrical generation. So hence, we need more power plants. And the political aspects and government regulations of trying to get a new power plant online these days?

Hydro. Cheap and affordable power as TVA proved almost 80 years ago. However, environmental groups scream any time something like this is proposed. The jumping saber toothed spotted field mouse will be impacted they'll scream. And file case after case after case in court attempting to stall it while the remainder of the electrical grid gets more and more strained and ages even that much more.

Solar. A realistic look at future energy production. However, land is needed for the solar farms and land that traditionally is cleared of forest...which tends to mean it is farm land. However, still a viable approach to electrical production as rooftops and other areas can be used. Problem? The price of same is rising as it's been listed as an alternative energy. And the payoff of attempting to outfit a house with panels would take years if not decades to pay off. And furthermore, as they are only good during sunlight periods, additional power is needed or a battery system. And batteries of the size needed to tend to be expensive and potentially hazardous. So we will probably get more environmental regulations that the government will bring down...

Wind energy. Kind of a unique situation since wind and hydro power are fairly old technologies that have suddenly became "new" again. Anyway. Wind power has the ability to not need great amounts of land and has shown it can produce a good amount of electricity when the wind is blowing at least. However, you get more activist groups out there claiming the migratory birds slam into the turbines (which they do) and they are a threat to the populations of potentially endangered species. So again, we have court case after court case that stalls the implementation of large scale wind farms.

Geothermal. Another promising alternate energy that's reasonably safe for the environment. Having said that, it only happens in selected locations and is not easy to get to. High cost of designing and building geothermal power plants keeps it on the back burner for the most part. And of course, the potentially toxic materials (hydrogen sulfide, mercury, ammonia, etc) that can and often are found have to be dealt with which gives environmental activists another reason to complain.

Natural gas. While the resources are finite, the fact it is a potential replacement for coal (although not as efficient) is promising. Having said that, the easiest method of extracting said natural gas seems to be fracking. And that's a huge can of worms in environmentalist's eyes. And while it is ongoing and expanded, the chances of governmental regulations on behalf of said environmental groups in the future is probably pretty high.

Nuclear power. I think this is probably the best option for the future. It's reasonably safe although people will bring up Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. However, the fact there are over 400 plants worldwide and have been operating for over 15,000 collective years with only three accidents is a pretty good operating record. However, you want to talk about environmental regulations? And environmental activist groups getting their dander up? Talk about putting in a nuclear power station and see what happens. All the sudden the staff of Three Mile Island will be operating the Chernobyl reaction sitting on top of the fault like like Fukushima. Millions will die when (not if according to them) the reactor blows up and the earth will be contaminated for millions of years with all life extinguished in an instant. And don't tell me I'm wrong, I've seen the activists in action before. However, nuclear power again is pretty efficient for the electrical output and generally safe in the hands of capable operators. And I think we're well past Three Mile Island mistakes and Chernobyl reactors these days at least in this country. However, it is and will continue to be a political nightmare to get a nuclear power station online in this nation.

Which brings us back to fossil fuels, oil and coal. Reasonably abundant, reasonably cheap, reasonably efficient for the required uses. Now are they harmful to the environment? Yes. Are they still the mainstream means of fuel for power plants and transportation? Yes. And until something comes along that is just as efficient as fossil fuels to replace them, the pattern will continue. People buy gas vehicles because they are efficient. Power plants (until recently) used coal because it is efficient as well as cheap. The resources are finite, yes, but modern technologies allow us to extra oil from where it has not been done before. And yet, the environmentalists continue to block every attempt to do so.

You speak of getting us off foreign oil and the Keystone project would allow us to significantly increase our resources in the Northern Hemisphere. Sure it's coming from Canada, but it's not like they harbor terrorists unless you start talking bad about Celine Dion. And has that project gone through? Have the environmental answers and safeguards not been promised and built into the system? Did they not reroute the pipeline around an area that was protected? So what's holding it up?

Politics. Simple as that. An activist group got the ear of the President and instead of helping relieve the strain on overseas oil sources, he has been sitting on it for how long? And that oil is now going to go to China. Instead of having something in our back yard so to speak, the Canadians have finally had enough of us diddling around and will sell it on the open market if we don't get our act together. And we still will have significant military presence in the Middle East to guard our interests there. The EPA is filled with environmentalists that refuse to accept the simple facts we are still a fossil fueled economy and will listen to political activists with an extremely slanted agenda before they will actually listen to reason.

And in turn, the government is killing an industry (coal) slowly but surely. And after that do you honestly think they will stop? No, they'll go after oil next and ignore the fact that petroleum products are essential to the very plastics their phones and computers are made out of to order the destruction of that industry. And after that? Nuclear, wind, solar...they won't stop at just one. And you cannot argue the fact they will just stop at one when time and time in history they have not stopped at just one.

And environmental activists won't be happy until they are the only ones left on the earth since they know best how to protect her and to hell with the general population that is destroying Gaia. No oil and coal because of greenhouse gasses. No nuclear because its unsafe. No wind because of the threat to birds. No cows because they give off methane. No hydro because it destroys the ecosystem. No solar because of the chemicals used in the battery system and because of the environmental footprint where the solar farms are. No geothermal because of the byproducts. I'm sure if fusion power is ever perfected, they'll find something wrong with that as well.

So what's the answer? I don't have one. But I do know one thing for certain, politics has zero place in the climate change as well as no place in the economic impacts of killing selected industries in this nation. Environmental activists have no place in getting the ear of the government's institutions of environmental wardship. I know the science should not be concealed and hidden and ALL viewpoints on the matter should be heard. And last but not least, before any global climatic standards are instituted, ALL nations should have to comply after ALL the science and discussion is heard and after ALL conclusions are reached.

 

[KentheOrange]

BTW it’s not a party line. You may have missed this because it was a page or two ago but I’m conservative and I’m a geoscientist in resource exploration. None of my peers doubt AGW. And what’s so bad about investing in alternative energy and decreasing our dependence on hostile nations for fossil fuels? We’re going to have to do it when we run out of fossil fuels here in the next 100 years anyways. I figure I’m the last generation that can ride the oil gravy train.

I don't know exactly which industry you're in, but having dealt with petroleum engineers from all the major petroleum companies, I can tell you that every one of those companies have NIH (not invented here) blind spots. You appear to have possibly been infected with that ailment.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

El Niño monitoring system in failure mode : Nature News & Comment

An ocean-monitoring system that extends across the tropical Pacific is collapsing, depriving scientists of data on a region that influences global weather and climate trends.Nearly half of the moored buoys in the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array have failed in the last two years, crippling an early-warning system for the warming and cooling events in the eastern equatorial Pacific, known respectively as El Niño and La Niña. Scientists are now collecting data from just 40% of the array.

“It’s the most important climate phenomenon on the planet, and we have blinded ourselves to it by not maintaining this array,” says Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Keep up the hard work fellas

 

[MG1968]

El Niño monitoring system in failure mode : Nature News & Comment



Keep up the hard work fellas

quick, call Jake Gyllenhall and Dennis Quaid, maybe even Ian Holm. Or just wait til Sunday.

 

[BartW]

No, china & many other countries don't give a damn about global warming or the theory of it. They do what they want & say to hell with the US. How are we gonna fix a global "problem" we can't control?

We lead by example! China is becoming more environmentally conscientious, despite recently surpassing us as the world’s largest CO2 emitter. It’s a global political problem, not a global scientific controversy/conspiracy.

Negative on the fossil fuel depletion in 200-300 years

I thought you said you work in energy exploration? I took that as petroleum/gas exploration. Guess I was wrong, because if you did you would know this statement is false.

Even with fracking and the prospect of methane hydrates estimates place the end of fossil fuels on the order of hundreds of years. Not billions. And as supplies dwindle and demand increases it will become too expensive to compete with alternative energy before we literally run out. Anyway if we burn all our fossil fuels in the next few centuries without developing alternative energy we’ll have bigger problems than the electric bill.

rabble rabble rabble

What crawled up your butt? I said I wouldn’t miss science denialism. There are a lot of things I love about Tennessee. #1 on that list is southern hospitality (or maybe the banjo – they’re 1a and 1b) which is severely lacking in here.

When debating the science fails stick your head in the sand



EDIT: Vol football is 1a :loco:

 

[BartW]

.

In the past global warming and cooling trends were caused by changes in the amount of radiation reaching Earth. Greenhouse gases acted primarily as positive feedbacks. Humans were not responsible for it then.

Climate modeling is complex but it is easier to predict the global climate in 20 years than the local weather in 20 days. Climate forcings are well understood. Weather is chaotic but climate is weather averaged over time. It works with trends. Climate models have successfully reconstructed the past and predicted the future. I think scientists are misportrayed as being unsure of their conclusions because they never convey 100% certainty – there’s always unknowns and improvements that can be made to the models. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a vast scientific consensus that global warming is real and we did it.

Climategate was a great fake scandal. I’d rather not go down the conspiracy theory path but it seems that’s where this thread is headed.

I completely agree with your stances on each form of alternative energy. I think nuclear is our best option to take over primary energy production, with wind and solar becoming significant contributors as well. I’m curious to see where hydroelectric goes with tidal/wave power.

It does bug me that non peer-reviewed “research” by organizations like WWF and Greenpeace are considered in international politics. I also agree that it’s BS to unequally impose emission restrictions. Every country needs to pull their weight in mitigating AGW. Few (if any) countries are meeting their emissions goals, but in my opinion they were unrealistic to begin with.

My overall point is that global warming is a political controversy not a scientific one.

 

[BartW]

Fox News - 2013 was 4th hottest year on record

Hell hath frozen over

 

[govols/cc]

Fox News - 2013 was 4th hottest year on record

Hell hath frozen over

Shouldn't that be 2010-2013 were 4 hottest years ever?

 

[govols/cc]

We lead by example! China is becoming more environmentally conscientious, despite recently surpassing us as the world’s largest CO2 emitter. It’s a global political problem, not a global scientific controversy/conspiracy.




Even with fracking and the prospect of methane hydrates estimates place the end of fossil fuels on the order of hundreds of years. Not billions. And as supplies dwindle and demand increases it will become too expensive to compete with alternative energy before we literally run out. Anyway if we burn all our fossil fuels in the next few centuries without developing alternative energy we’ll have bigger problems than the electric bill.



What crawled up your butt? I said I wouldn’t miss science denialism. There are a lot of things I love about Tennessee. #1 on that list is southern hospitality (or maybe the banjo – they’re 1a and 1b) which is severely lacking in here.

When debating the science fails stick your head in the sand



EDIT: Vol football is 1a :loco:

What do we lead? China practically owns us. All the environmental & conservation bs in the US is pretty much a money grab which is why many companies outsource to places like china. I don't for a second believe china will use any new environmental policies as a money grab or let it hinder in any way what they already do well.

 

[hog88]

Even with fracking and the prospect of methane hydrates estimates place the end of fossil fuels on the order of hundreds of years. Not billions. And as supplies dwindle and demand increases it will become too expensive to compete with alternative energy before we literally run out. Anyway if we burn all our fossil fuels in the next few centuries without developing alternative energy we’ll have bigger problems than the electric



EDIT: Vol football is 1a :loco:

Hundreds of years, not billions? First of all 10 hundreds of years, even 2 hundreds of years is a long time. Think of the leaps in technology just within the last 1 hundreds of years. We do not need to cripple our economy trying to prevent something totally out of our control.

Billions of years? Yeah don't give a good shizz.

 

[Grand Vol]

Climategate was a great fake scandal. I’d rather not go down the conspiracy theory path but it seems that’s where this thread is headed.

What kind of liberal hogwash is this? Just because it didn't fit your agenda does not make it a "fake scandal" or a conspiracy theory. That's a play right out of the book of Obama.

If someone brings up information that contradicts your point of view, laugh and claim they are insane.

Now, I was using that as the only example of a problem of a suppression of information that has happened. Points of view are stated, the information is hidden and the "facts" that reach the public are overstated as well as being selective. You think I'm wrong? Look at the agenda behind gun control because the same thing happened there as well. Or any number of political topics that happen to garner the front page of the news these days.

Point being is that all the information about this was not available for the public to make an informed decision concerning the effects of climatic change. And again, a slanted view of what the powers that be wanted you to think. If you believe this is heading for conspiracy theory talk, you are wrong. That's not conspiracy theory, that's called modern day politics. You can sit there and laugh and sneer all you want to, but the simple fact remains. Contrary information was out there, it was hidden by the "leading" scientists on the matter and the effects were overstated by those in political power.

So again, I go back to the point of the informed public. How much of the information is out there for us to make an informed decision? You claim this is a fake scandal when the fact remained the information was omitted that might have helped everyone to make an informed decision with something that could affect all our lives in a drastic way.

 

[Grand Vol]

Climategate was a great fake scandal. I’d rather not go down the conspiracy theory path but it seems that’s where this thread is headed.

And if my words aren't convincing enough...

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong - Telegraph

Climate scientists urged to cover up slow in global warming, it is claimed - Telegraph

 

[BartW]

And if my words aren't convincing enough...

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong - Telegraph

Climate scientists urged to cover up slow in global warming, it is claimed - Telegraph

Did you even read the articles? The text and actual quotes don't support the titles. But that's pretty typical climate science reporting for the Telegraph.

Climategate was absolutely a fake scandal blown up by the media by taking quotes in the hacked e-mails out of context. All investigations cleared the CRU of any scientific misconduct. I could go into specifics, but first I should ask, what do you think Climategate was about? Let's hear the conspiracy spin.

 

[Grand Vol]

Did you even read the articles? The text and actual quotes don't support the titles. But that's pretty typical climate science reporting for the Telegraph.

Climategate was absolutely a fake scandal blown up by the media by taking quotes in the hacked e-mails out of context. All investigations cleared the CRU of any scientific misconduct. I could go into specifics, but first I should ask, what do you think Climategate was about? Let's hear the conspiracy spin.

You know, I tend to get the same kind of response from LG when he refuses to move from a position because he is automatically right and evidence to the contrary is just a right wing conspiracy to spin the information the way they want. So I can see you are dead set that you are right, nobody else can contribute, so I'll leave you to your views because nobody can tell you otherwise.

Enjoy.

 

[Sandvol]

Did you even read the articles? The text and actual quotes don't support the titles. But that's pretty typical climate science reporting for the Telegraph.

Climategate was absolutely a fake scandal blown up by the media by taking quotes in the hacked e-mails out of context. All investigations cleared the CRU of any scientific misconduct. I could go into specifics, but first I should ask, what do you think Climategate was about? Let's hear the conspiracy spin.

Investigations cleared the CRU? That's news. Why don't you tell us. Maybe you should fly down there and join that Ship of Fools.

 

[BartW]

Investigations cleared the CRU? That's news. Why don't you tell us. Maybe you should fly down there and join that Ship of Fools.

It’s funny how Climategate got a ton of coverage when it broke but after people actually took the time to read the stolen e-mails and they didn’t contain anything suspicious, hardly any media coverage at all. I guess, “Global Warming not a conspiracy after all” doesn’t make a great headline.

Official investigations were conducted by the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, their Independent Climate Change Review, International Science Assessment Panel, Penn State University, the University of East Anglia, the EPA, the Department of Commerce, the NSF, NOAA... many other independent investigations were conducted by media outlets, the AP, Politifact, Factcheck, etc. If you’re interested in what actually happened and not the smear campaign’s version, I would start by reading the Wiki or CRU's press release.

“A lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on” –Churchill

 

[BartW]

You know, I tend to get the same kind of response from LG when he refuses to move from a position because he is automatically right and evidence to the contrary is just a right wing conspiracy to spin the information the way they want. So I can see you are dead set that you are right, nobody else can contribute, so I'll leave you to your views because nobody can tell you otherwise.

Enjoy.

We could continue arguing the science (getting old imo) or we can change the topic of this thread to the actual politics (interesting imo). Y’all are the ones bringing up conspiracy theories. If you’d rather live in your faux news conspiracy bubble then good day :hi:. I’m off to a mineral exploration convention where we’ll surely plot our next scheme to regulate your hummers and help China take down America.

 

[Grand Vol]

If you'd rather live in your world where you only believe news that fits your agenda and consider anything that is contrary to be a "conspiracy" then by all means. Free country.

And BTW, I don't own a hummer.

 

[govols/cc]

North Korea put a man on the sun so it's not that hot.

 

[Sandvol]

It’s funny how Climategate got a ton of coverage when it broke but after people actually took the time to read the stolen e-mails and they didn’t contain anything suspicious, hardly any media coverage at all. I guess, “Global Warming not a conspiracy after all” doesn’t make a great headline.

Official investigations were conducted by the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, their Independent Climate Change Review, International Science Assessment Panel, Penn State University, the University of East Anglia, the EPA, the Department of Commerce, the NSF, NOAA... many other independent investigations were conducted by media outlets, the AP, Politifact, Factcheck, etc. If you’re interested in what actually happened and not the smear campaign’s version, I would start by reading the Wiki or CRU's press release.

“A lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on” –Churchill

So, the AP, Politifact, and Factcheck are all independent media outlets? I know PSU investigated Mann and cleared him of any wrong doing of course. But, Mann indicated in his testimony that he believed what Jones was asking him to do was clearly wrong. And the Parliamentary Science Sub-Committee hardly cleared Jones of any wrong doing. And, if he didn't do anything wrong why did he step down? And, why is it that they only focus on the surface temperature data and ignore and hide the proxy data?