Has a hacker exposed myths of man-made global warming?

Corruption as in rigging the numbers so they appear to tell a different story (if this report is true)? I'd say that's a bit more than just "corruption" when it comes to making a so-called scientific case. That potentially destroys the entire model.

This is just one university.

If that's the case there will never be be able to determine truth again. There is always someone in every cause that thinks the ends justify the means.

Now if you can show that this kind of manipulation is pervasive (say like Fox news repeatedly using fake footage of Tea Party protests and Palin book signings to make it look like there are huge angry crowds and then coyly claiming it was an "accident" 3 times in a row) then you might have a case.

A single unethical researcher does not a conspiracy make.

I happen to work for one of these cable news networks. Trust me; there's far too many mistakes made on a daily basis in a live 24/7 programming day to call this type of thing a conspiracy. It happens at all networks. It's not fun for anyone when it occurs, either. Management doesn't take too kindly to this type of thing, as it's just gratuitous fodder for political opponents. You don't want to give your enemies the rope to hang yourself with. Everyone in this business knows that every minute of the programming day is scrutinized by competitors and those of different political stripes. Nothing goes unnoticed.

I read a report on one of the Cable News blogs that FNC management was going to severely punish (or words to that effect) someone or some people involved in the latest episode. I believe them. No one needs that kind of PR.

of conservative causes at Fox (they never "accidentally" show a small turnout for conservative figurehead). And of course it never happens when they are mocking liberal causes. Three times in a row its happened. I'll believe its a genuine mistake when Fox shows huge crowds at a pro-gay or anti-way rallies (or shows them at all as they usually just pretend they aren't happening).

And it still does not change that fact that the actions of one or two researchers with no integrity does not discredit the work of thousands of others.

when all the "accidents" are in the same direction. Don't forget the 3-4 times where, when a major scandal was breaking for a Republican, Fox "accidentally" put Democrat under the guy's picture!

Where are you getting this info from? The reason I ask is because if it's from a political advocacy website on the left such as moveon.org, Daily Kos, etc., do you think they would go out of their way to highlight mistakes by cable networks other than Fox? Of course not, because it doesn't fit into their narrative. You're talking about what's commonly referred to as "Chyron" errors, where someone --either a producer or the Chyron operator-- has input incorrect information. It happens on all networks. I see misspellings on-air all the time, on every network.

One host of a particular news channel was interviewing Jesse Jackson, and called him Al Sharpton. Now, depending upon which network that happened on (google it), one might come away with a different take on the incident based on their own political viewpoint. My point is that mistakes happen all the time. If you watch enough --and don't just rely on John Stewart or moveon.org or freerepublic.com on the right to get your conspiracy theories, you'll start noticing a lot more of them --on all cable networks.

Daily show is perfectly happy to go after CNN and MSNBC. You see the daily show is more a media assisination show, they thrive on finding the ridiclious. They have a liberal bias but are still happy to mock the absurdies on the liberal side. They're main business is not politics but laughs.

Either it is true or not--discounting facts because of who reported on them--what is that?

I think it now goes back to you--you say some "political activists" are ignoring examples which reflect poorly on liberals or whatever--so show us where YOU got THAT. Not just spelling errors (are you saying you believe it is a common error to mispell "Republican" as "Democrat?)or calling someone by the wrong name--give us examples of other times where where absolutely false info was broadcast by the "left" and not withdrawn until another source exposed it.

The link by minimalist goes to a story that includes exposing a problem with MSNBC. Got any like that where the "error" was internal by their own people? This was bad--don't get me wrong--but it wasn't their own people creating the photos, while the Fox stories were completely about their own people creating the incorrect footage. I'd like to see examples of those kind, not vague "Others do it too."

Look, you guys are going to believe what you want to believe. I get it. Fox can defend themselves, and I'd say chances are pretty good (if you read between the lines) that you just might be sometimes watching My network, lol, so in that sense, welcome aboard!

But here's just a few examples of common mistakes and one intentional:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3829827

(read the description on the bottom of the screen)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/msnbc-confuses-bernie-mac_n_173663.html

Bernie Who?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/11/16/msnbc-s-dylan-ratigan-apologizes-using-faked-photos-sarah-palin

Oops...darn photoshop!

Not to single out one network, but I had literally 30 seconds to search before heading off to my own job.

So, you will see what you want to see. That's all I can say. As an insider, though...mistakes are very, very common.

And, as far as singling out one network, MSNBC is often held out as the liberal equivalent of Fox, so it's a natural choice for this.

The first one is hilarious.

The first 2 are pure mistakes and don't appear to further any polical agenda--unless there is some Bernie Mac political issue that I'm not aware of (lol). The Palin one IS a legitimate one to be suspicious of.

Personally, I do wish you wouldn't use "you guys are going to believe what you want to believe" and "you will see what you want to see". It not only makes any subsequent stuff from me/us totally suspect and therefore valueless, but implies you are a closed door that will not see any point we make however valid it is. I was sincerely asking for examples as, if they're out there, I want to know when I'm being manipulated. But those phrases make it sound like you are not the same attitude. I suspect that's NOT true but sure has the effect of slamming the door shut, whether or not that was your intent/desire.

Again, thanks for the examples and will look at any others you might find when you have more time, if you choose to do so.

I'm sorry for marginalizing your comments. That wasn't my intent. My intent was to say that it's human nature to view things through prisms (I certainly do), and to find things that support your point of view. I'm not here to say there's no bias at Fox or MSNBC...they are catering, primarily, to niche audiences.

I'm trying to say that sometimes errors are just that --errors. Like I said before, all of the networks know that every second of their broadcast days are being scrutinized by groups and/or competitors. It makes ZERO sense for any of them to to intentionally try to pass something off when they absolutely understand that it won't go unnoticed. And when the errors do occur, they know they are going to be spun as some sort of conspiracy, and the resulting PR is going to be quite negative and potentially deleterious to their image. See my point? It just doesn't make sense to do these things intentionally. That's just the way it is today in the cable news world.

And that's what I was trying to say about the whole global warming debate. There may be facts about temperatures that have actually risen over time, but it's not necessarily correct to say that it's a direct result of x or y. There are any number of variables at play.

And I undoubtedly over-analyzed too. Perhaps while it was passing thru my prism? <g>

I am not as confident that an organization will always avoid saying things it knows are untrue. An awful lot of politics these days(I'm including organizations with political agendas), it seems to me, are all about distorting and exaggerating and knowingly flatly lying to their base(s), with a fair amount of confidence that they won't believe it when others tell them it's untrue. People cynically use "prism issues" for evil as well as good, if you don't mind a callback to the earlier conversation.

And now, on to Black Friday!

Fox apparently trying to be balanced in the misidentifying saga, lol:

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/user_files/blago.jpg

Remember this oldie but goodie? The infamous red X over Cheney during a speech?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47523

Olbermann caught "flat footed" in the Richard Wolffe "scandal", where Wolffe was touted as an MSNBC analyst and an Olbermann fill-in while actually being employed (quite publicly) as a corporate lobbyist:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/04/richard-wolffe-will-not-b_n_250776.html

John Stewart takes on the mainstream media for the Acorn story --primarily reported by Fox for awhile (because it fit their narrative). http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-stewart-crawls-back-to-relevance-with-acorn-takedown/ (and remember the NY Times had to grudgingly admit they were very late to report this and the Van Jones story.)

Just to keep it all light-hearted, here's where a newspaper gets into the game:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/la-times-mistakes-olbermann-for-*******/

And if you want to see a lot of Fox fodder --as well as some other network doozies-- check out the "Chyron of the Day" section here:

http://www.mediaite.com/tag/chyron-of-the-day/

It was already in a Newscorp publication (parent of Fox News): the Wall Street Journal. But it's also in the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp

Granted that it's kind of buried when it appears in a Saturday edition, but it's there, nonetheless.

The Times author did inject some of his own editorial opinion, however --never welcomed in what should be an actual news story-- when he said "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." It's really not for him to judge the future implications.

Add to this leak the story out this week that scientists can't really explain why warming has essentially come to a standstill:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

It's a pretty comprehensive and fair article. It's going to be that much harder for those who support the human-assisted climate change theory to make the case given current circumstances.

1) That university's security stinks.

2) Even if research results are tempered...you people have better explanations for longer and bigger floods/droughts or stronger storms or melting of glaciers around the world? Offer me a better non-supernatural explanation and I'll be ready to discard global warming as fake...until then, these emails proves only some scientists are human and make bad judgments like the rest of us...nothing more and nothing less.

The question is the cause(s) of global warming. The controversy is over whether it is primarily caused by humans (or at least very exacerbated) or whether it's forces of nature that would happen naturally --something there is historical precedent for in pre-human times.

All I want from science is that people are totally honest and don't try to look for ways to prove pre-conceived notions --on either side of the equation. Too much to ask for, I guess.

I certainly do not think they should or need to mess with the data gathered. That said, if you still have trouble distinguishing human causes vs natural causes, I don't think any "true" scientific data can convince you.

I'm not distinguishing between anything, thank you. Are you saying there is unanimity about this, and no one with any scientific cred could reasonably disagree with, limit their agreement with, or come to different conclusions about ramifications than these theories?

I'm hesitant to put my trust in wiki for obvious reasons, but a simple search brought up a pretty good list of people who seem to be well-educated and hold positions of prestige in the scientific community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I'm not saying any one of these individuals is right (if this list is accurate). But to unequivocally say they are all wrong? I guess there is omniscience in the world, after all. Congratulations.

CO2 has gone from 290ppm in the 19ty century to 380ppm today. You're gonna need a very solid alternative explination before people take it seriously.

Again, you're stating a fact (the increase in CO2) but attributing it to humans as a prima facie explanation. There's the rub...cause and effect. Moreover, the question of what are the real implications of it.

Whatever; I'm not here to make the case against man-made global warming. I just want good, honest science untainted by politics or pre-conceived notions --on either side. Alas, in this politically charged atmosphere (no pun intended) it doesn't seem like that's a possibility.

I think it's safe to agree that nothing will be settled in this thread, lol. Now, about Black Friday...