Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), Scott W
wrote:

Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...


Mind you I thought the description of the sceptic and the end was
pretty much spot on. "What an a***hole!"

On Dec 5, 10:38*am, Paul C wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), Scott W

wrote:
Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...

Mind you I thought the description of the sceptic and the end was
pretty much spot on. "What an a***hole!"

You can see the item again here on the BBC I-Player
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_04_12_2009/
Martha Kearney apologises later.

What people here ought to realise is that the US sceptics are far
worse than even our dear Lawrence. These are the people to whom Prof.
Jones was refusing to give his data.

If you want an academic argument then watch this debate on the Daily
Politics!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8374523.stm

I reckon that the sceptical Prof. Fred Singer made two fallacious
arguments, Prof. Bob Watson, the head of IPCC sacked by GWB at the
instigation of ESSO, made four!

Enjoy, Alastair.

On Dec 5, 12:09*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:38*am, Paul C wrote:





On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), Scott W

wrote:
Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...

Mind you I thought the description of the sceptic and the end was
pretty much spot on. "What an a***hole!"

You can see the item again here on the BBC I-Playerhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p92nx/Newsnight_04_12_2009/
Martha Kearney apologises later.

What people here ought to realise is that the US sceptics are far
worse than even our dear *Lawrence. These are the people to whom Prof.
Jones was refusing to give his data.

If you want an academic argument then watch this debate on the Daily
Politics!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...s/8374523..stm

I reckon that the sceptical Prof. Fred Singer made two fallacious
arguments, Prof. Bob Watson, the head of IPCC sacked by GWB at the
instigation of ESSO, made four!

Enjoy, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alastair, and now a typo on the Himalyan snow data - only a matter of
300 years. People are already getting confused and fed up over this
Copenhagen 'discussion;'-note how it has been degraded by the beeb.
It used to be a 'climate summit'. Also Met Office staff have already
applied their considerable skills to the problem of data analysis, if
the universites want a go then fair enough then issue the data if they
can. Heaven help us though when the media-lead public have a go.
This whole thing is now so messy that there must be a funny side to
it!
Cheers Paul B.

On Dec 5, 7:41*pm, Paul Bartlett wrote:
On Dec 5, 12:09*pm, Alastair wrote:



On Dec 5, 10:38*am, Paul C wrote:

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), Scott W

wrote:
Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...

Mind you I thought the description of the sceptic and the end was
pretty much spot on. "What an a***hole!"

You can see the item again here on the BBC I-Playerhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p92nx/Newsnight_04_12_2009/
Martha Kearney apologises later.

What people here ought to realise is that the US sceptics are far
worse than even our dear *Lawrence. These are the people to whom Prof..
Jones was refusing to give his data.

If you want an academic argument then watch this debate on the Daily
Politics!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8374523.stm

I reckon that the sceptical Prof. Fred Singer made two fallacious
arguments, Prof. Bob Watson, the head of IPCC sacked by GWB at the
instigation of ESSO, made four!

Enjoy, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alastair, and now a typo on the Himalyan snow data - only a matter of
300 years. *People are already getting confused and fed up over this
Copenhagen 'discussion;'-note how it has been degraded by the beeb.
It used to be a 'climate summit'. *Also Met Office staff have already
applied their considerable skills to the problem of data analysis, if
the universites want a go then fair enough then issue the data if they
can. *Heaven help us though when the media-lead public have a go.
This whole thing is now so messy that there must be a funny side to
it!
Cheers Paul B.

I finally found the funny side of it :-)

The sceptics are all a bunch of right-wing neo-facists, oh sorry, neo-
cons and Telegraph readers. It's the Russians who hacked into the UEA
because they want to sell their oil, gas, and need global warming to
make Siberia productive. So all those guys who would rather be red
than dead, are praising the actions of the KGB's successors!

Alright it's not that funny, at least the way I tell them :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

On 7 Dec, 22:52, Alastair wrote:
On Dec 5, 7:41*pm, Paul Bartlett wrote:





On Dec 5, 12:09*pm, Alastair wrote:

On Dec 5, 10:38*am, Paul C wrote:

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), Scott W

wrote:
Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...

Mind you I thought the description of the sceptic and the end was
pretty much spot on. "What an a***hole!"

You can see the item again here on the BBC I-Playerhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p92nx/Newsnight_04_12_2009/
Martha Kearney apologises later.

What people here ought to realise is that the US sceptics are far
worse than even our dear *Lawrence. These are the people to whom Prof.
Jones was refusing to give his data.

If you want an academic argument then watch this debate on the Daily
Politics!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8374523.stm

I reckon that the sceptical Prof. Fred Singer made two fallacious
arguments, Prof. Bob Watson, the head of IPCC sacked by GWB at the
instigation of ESSO, made four!

Enjoy, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alastair, and now a typo on the Himalyan snow data - only a matter of
300 years. *People are already getting confused and fed up over this
Copenhagen 'discussion;'-note how it has been degraded by the beeb.
It used to be a 'climate summit'. *Also Met Office staff have already
applied their considerable skills to the problem of data analysis, if
the universites want a go then fair enough then issue the data if they
can. *Heaven help us though when the media-lead public have a go.
This whole thing is now so messy that there must be a funny side to
it!
Cheers Paul B.

I finally found the funny side of it :-)

The sceptics are all a bunch of right-wing neo-facists, oh sorry, neo-
cons and Telegraph readers. It's the Russians who hacked into the UEA
because they want to sell their oil, gas, and need global warming to
make Siberia productive. So all those guys who would rather be red
than dead, are praising the actions of *the KGB's successors!

Alright it's not that funny, at least the way I tell them :-(

I am not a right winger. Moderately leftish if anything. But I'd only
vote for that Fawkes bloke and only then if he came back with a no
more Mr Nice Guy policy.

It is only recently that the Arctic has been open to research and that
is very limited. And still a lot of military stuff is classified. All
we can do is look at pictures of the surface. That's no good. It's
like the early satellite data that had everyone worried about ozone.

It seems to be that all ne discoveries these days are accompanied by a
need to kill or a need to know. How the hell can anyone form an
opinion with that sort of mentality.

And the formation comes at the gentle massaging of corporate news and
20 second sound bites one sentence maybe clipped and repeated each
newscast for 15 or 20 hours.

We are being turned into thinking turnips controlled by Crowmen.

On Dec 8, 6:06*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On 7 Dec, 22:52, Alastair wrote:



On Dec 5, 7:41*pm, Paul Bartlett wrote:

On Dec 5, 12:09*pm, Alastair wrote:

On Dec 5, 10:38*am, Paul C wrote:

On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), Scott W

wrote:
Was most disappointed with Newsnight tonight... we were promised

"As the United Nations decides to conduct its own investigation into e-
mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, we'll be hearing from
inside the bunker for the first time. A scientist there tells us that
his colleagues have been traduced. A sceptical voice from the US
responds"

Instead we were given something which resembled PMQs. I commend the
BBC for giving this airtime - but the chairmanship of the two voices
was awful. I'm surprised Piers wasn't wheeled out as well...

Mind you I thought the description of the sceptic and the end was
pretty much spot on. "What an a***hole!"

You can see the item again here on the BBC I-Playerhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p92nx/Newsnight_04_12_2009/
Martha Kearney apologises later.

What people here ought to realise is that the US sceptics are far
worse than even our dear *Lawrence. These are the people to whom Prof.
Jones was refusing to give his data.

If you want an academic argument then watch this debate on the Daily
Politics!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...cs/8374523.stm

I reckon that the sceptical Prof. Fred Singer made two fallacious
arguments, Prof. Bob Watson, the head of IPCC sacked by GWB at the
instigation of ESSO, made four!

Enjoy, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Alastair, and now a typo on the Himalyan snow data - only a matter of
300 years. *People are already getting confused and fed up over this
Copenhagen 'discussion;'-note how it has been degraded by the beeb.
It used to be a 'climate summit'. *Also Met Office staff have already
applied their considerable skills to the problem of data analysis, if
the universites want a go then fair enough then issue the data if they
can. *Heaven help us though when the media-lead public have a go.
This whole thing is now so messy that there must be a funny side to
it!
Cheers Paul B.

I finally found the funny side of it :-)

The sceptics are all a bunch of right-wing neo-facists, oh sorry, neo-
cons and Telegraph readers. It's the Russians who hacked into the UEA
because they want to sell their oil, gas, and need global warming to
make Siberia productive. So all those guys who would rather be red
than dead, are praising the actions of *the KGB's successors!

Alright it's not that funny, at least the way I tell them :-(

I am not a right winger. Moderately leftish if anything. But I'd only
vote for that Fawkes bloke and only then if he came back with a no
more Mr Nice Guy policy.

It is only recently that the Arctic has been open to research and that
is very limited. And still a lot of military stuff is classified. All
we can do is look at pictures of the surface. That's no good. It's
like the early satellite data that had everyone worried about ozone.

It seems to be that all ne discoveries these days are accompanied by a
need to kill or a need to know. How the hell can anyone form an
opinion with that sort of mentality.

And the formation comes at the gentle massaging of corporate news and
20 second sound bites one sentence maybe clipped and repeated each
newscast for 15 or 20 hours.

We are being turned into thinking turnips controlled by Crowmen.

Here is more Russian sceptical propaganda :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=bKrw6ih8Gto

Cheers, Alastair.