Originally Posted by Benzo
1. All journalism can be considered sloppy depending on ones bias...I can pick apart a Star or NYTimes article on any given day.
2.I think in this case they will have to pick the story up, now that reuters and online sources like yahoo etc...are on it they will have to. The political BS falls both ways if this was a story about some right wing debacle it would be all over the place and you know it.
3.Perhaps I should have been clearer on the terms. I see "Global Warming" as the trend it has become in media and politics. "Climate Change" I see as the worlds natural cycle of change not man driven. I will say it is possible that man effects climate, too what extent though, we do not know.
What I do know is that what these "scientists" have done (and remember this is NASA and CRC we are talking about) is absolutely reprehensible, and changing and deleting files once a "Request for Information" has been submitted is highly illegal, and they could face criminal charges. My prediction, and I don't know for sure, but this might just be the tip of the iceberg (pun intended).
Belsuis, there was a time in that world was covered in ice, not just leaves not falling, and man had nothing to do with it.
1 - Of course. But don't automatically assume "bias" has something to do with all journalism. Not all journalism has to be bias. That's the problem with too much of today's journalism, especially in the US. You've got Fox, on one hand, and MSNBC, on the other. Both are very misleading. CBC is not perfect, but it is far more balanced. Quite a bit in the print media is bias, but not all of it. There are some journalists with integrity who properly fact check.
2 - Well, if it keeps growing, maybe other outlers will pick it up. However, I think they may take a different slant because, as I will soon show, the side being told so far is misleading, and the way the info is presented is sloppy. And that's not me being "bias", that's me following a methodology I try to apply to all subjects. I look at the source and ask questions about it and scrutinize it. I do the same things to "lefties." You know I do, since I've already stated my position on other matters we agree on. I have no problem telling the hippies to grow up when they spread their 911 nonsense.
3 - Ah, the key word is extent. See, most honest climatologists will tell you, the concern is not so much about global warming, but the RATE of change in temperature. Yes, throught the planet's history there have been natural cycles, and there are SEVERAL variables that account for those natural cycles. However, the RATE at which the Earth is warming in such a short period of time belies all the arguments that try to reduce the change to "solar cycles", "Volcanic eruptions" or other natural phenomena. Rate is an important aspect of the changing trend, especially when assessing the correlation between increased CO2 levels and temperature. Thing is, when looking at short term trends, data gets skewed by sudden events, such as Volcanic eruptions or El Ninho's, and that's what the deniers prey upon.
4 - Nice pun with the iceburg comment.
But I also think you're jumping to conclusions a bit. These emails are only being disclosed in pieces. An objective person would ask, why aren't they showing more than just a few lines, if they are really that damaging? We'll have to see how this plays out.