Changes

:* Warming periods have happened before - but not due to man-made changes

:* Warming periods have happened before - but not due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones admitted during an interview with the ''[[BBC]]'' his record keeping is "not as good as it should be," and that he "did not do a thorough job" of keeping track of his own records. Colleagues say that the reason Phil Jones refused [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. The data is crucial to the famous [[hockey stick graph]] used by [[climate change]] advocates to support the [[theory]].<ref>Jonathan Petre. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995], ''[[Daily Mail]]'', February 14, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor’s amazing climate change retreat], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], February 13, 2010.</ref> Professor Jones also said that there is little difference between global warming rates in the 1990's and in two previous periods since 1860, leaving open the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – that the [[Medieval Warm Period]] from 800 to 1300 AD was warmer than the present period, and it could have encompassed the entire globe. Phil Jones also accepted a fact that from 1995 to 2010, for the past 15 years, there has been no statistically significant warming. He conceded the possibility suggesting [[global warming]] may not be a man-made phenomenon.

Professor Phil Jones admitted during an interview with the ''[[BBC]]'' his record keeping is "not as good as it should be," and that he "did not do a thorough job" of keeping track of his own records. Colleagues say that the reason Phil Jones refused [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. The data is crucial to the famous [[hockey stick graph]] used by [[climate change]] advocates to support the [[theory]].<ref>Jonathan Petre. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995], ''[[Daily Mail]]'', February 14, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT-The-professors-amazing-climate-change-retreat.html MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor’s amazing climate change retreat], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], February 13, 2010.</ref> Professor Jones also said that there is little difference between global warming rates in the 1990s and in two previous periods since 1860, leaving open the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – that the [[Medieval Warm Period]] from 800 to 1300 AD was warmer than the present period, and it could have encompassed the entire globe. Phil Jones also accepted a fact that from 1995 to 2010, for the past 15 years, there has been no statistically significant warming. He conceded the possibility suggesting [[global warming]] may not be a man-made phenomenon.

==Climategate Emails==

==Climategate Emails==

</small>

</small>

After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (eg. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

After a second file search was executed to double check how many of the Climategate emails contained some permutation of the letters "t r i c k," it revealed 29 emails out of the 1079 emails in the [http://junkscience.com/FOIA/ FOIA2009.zip] file. Only one instance was found where Dr. Jones used the word "trick" in reference to a procedure on data. There are other uses and variations of the word "trick" in other emails, but only one instance attributed to Jones where he refers to this data issue. As Dr. Jones put it: The word ‘trick’ was used in the lone instance colloquially as in a clever thing to do (e.g. "that’ll do the trick"). But it was questioned that one would expect to see it in general use by Dr. Jones in other emails if it was indeed a colloquialism. In the thousand plus Climategate emails, there’s no other use of the word "trick" by Dr. Jones related to data truncation or otherwise, though there are other colloquial uses of the word by other authors.<ref name=trickcount/>

===Themes===

===Themes===

{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|[The scientists] were asking each other to delete messages to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. That doesn't sound legal. Scientists are working together to try and change the definition of [[peer review]] journals so that anybody who said global warming wasn't real couldn't get their papers published. ... [And then with] these thousands of E-mails ... Shouldn't this be - oh, I don't know - everywhere now? All of them are, to varying degrees, important. But how much could any of those actually cost you? This scandal will literally cost you trillions of dollars. That's what's at stake worldwide. It's on how we deal with the climate.<ref name=nbstaff>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2009/11/24/glenn-beck-cites-newsbusters-bash-tvs-climategate-boycott Glenn Beck Cites NewsBusters to Bash TV's ClimateGate Boycott], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', November 24, 2009.</ref>}}

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (ie. Exxon, Shell) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:

According to [[Rush Limbaugh]], another theme of the e-mails that have been released is how people at the Climatic Research Unit were constantly trying to "shake down" the oil companies (i.e. Exxon, Shell) for [[money]] and for partnerships.<ref>[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/ Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support], ''WUWT'', December 04, 2009.</ref> On this reoccurring theme, Limbaugh mentioned the following:

{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies.  The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it.  What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

{{cquote|They talk about it openly, how they're constantly trying to shake down the oil companies.  The only thing man-made about global warming is the theory behind it.  What you are going to do with people who are even willing to lie about the weather?<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_113009/content/01125111.guest.html It's Not a Consensus, It's a Cabal], RushLimbaugh.com, November 30, 2009.</ref>}}

==Climategate Media Coverage==

==Climategate Media Coverage==

The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. Climategate media coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.  

The Climategate media coverage refers to the journalistic methods used by the Mainstream media to deceive the public from learning more specific details about the fraudulent climate data. Climategate media coverage of the scandal is a [[media]]-focused overview from the most notable discussions covering Climategate: the revealed data, e-mails and manipulated code sets. As details emerged from the Climategate scandal, Climatic Research Unit scientists at the University of East Anglia were exposed. Despite the significance of the scandal and its impact on climate science, the leftist media ignored it, and then focused on pushing forward with the [[global warming]] [[hoax]].<ref name=climatehoax>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120809/content/01125110.guest.html Hoax: Climate Change Makes Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism], RushLimbaugh.com, December 8, 2009.</ref> Coverage of Climategate showed just how [[bias]] the [[liberal media]] has become in order to advance an environmental agenda.  

In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, "The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud."<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref> It was later revealed that the BBC had previously invested a lot of money in carbon offset programs, so the media organization was dependent on the global warming hoax being perceived as truth.<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031110/content/01125111.guest.html ChiComs Order Journalists to Undergo Marxist Theory Training (American Media Already Trained)], RushLimbaugh.com, March 11, 2010.</ref> Ongoing coverage of the Climategate scandal also verified NASA and the state-run media knew about temperature data issues nearly three years ago; for example, ''[[USA Today]]'' received information about these issues but refused to report on it. ''USA Today'' and ''[[BBC News]]'' shirked their journalistic duties to push global warming in spite of evidence that the earth has not been significantly warming since 1995.  

In the wake of the Climategate scandal, a truly bizarre situation happened; the [[mainstream media]] stories about global warming pretended the uncovered documents never happened. This worldwide Climategate cover-up also occurred before the public had learned about Climategate, too. The [[U.K.]] ''[[Daily Mail]]'' pointed out that, a month prior to November 19, 2009, "The BBC received copies of some of the CRU emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them, sitting on explosive evidence of fraud."<ref name=bbclie>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html BBC weatherman ‘ignored’ leaked climate row emails], [[Daily Mail|dailymail.co.uk]], November 28, 2009.</ref> It was later revealed that the BBC had previously invested a lot of money in carbon offset programs, so the media organization was dependent on the global warming hoax being perceived as truth.<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031110/content/01125111.guest.html ChiComs Order Journalists to Undergo Marxist Theory Training (American Media Already Trained)], RushLimbaugh.com, March 11, 2010.</ref> Ongoing coverage of the Climategate scandal also verified NASA and the state-run media knew about temperature data issues nearly three years ago; for example, ''[[USA Today]]'' received information about these issues but refused to report on it. ''USA Today'' and ''[[BBC News]]'' shirked their journalistic duties to push global warming in spite of evidence that the earth has not been significantly warming since 1995.