http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/
To summarize the above blog:
The BBC has run an article based on a “Science Magazine” article, written by one of the climategate fakers. Notice the date on the BBC posting, yesterday. It’s not just that Micael Mann is still being listened to and hasn’t yet lost his university position, the outrage is also because the Science Magazine article deals in the faked data.
Or is the BBC just that dumb?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8381317.stm
Unlike most of the Rape-publicans.
Here's a clue - being 'in the tank' for the truth is not a bad thing.
in either "man made" global warming or "intelligent design", I don't believe in either. I believe they also share a common theme of controlling and manipulating the "sheeple" and extorting their money.
This isn't about the science of evolution vs ID. It's not even about the science of global warming vs. the skeptics of man made GW.
This is about the corruption of science for reasons not entirely yet revealed. Money? power? self righteousness? Any or all of the above?
And your comment that acknowledges that I was able to make a point that went completely over your head was a true compliment. Thank you.
You can't recognize the truth. Or it could be your hatred blinds you.
At the very least, the whole scandal involves serious allegations of scientists falsifying data, and that is being generous.
In response to allegations of fraud, Puck says that "being in the tank for the truth is not a bad thing."
HEY. If the scientists were not involved in lying, being in the tank for truth on their part would have been VERY admirable.
Here, the media is in the tank for lying, which Puck still seems to think is not a bad thing.
Sometimes the world is upside down
According to who? As usual, the usual suspects simply latch onto the talking points and vomit them everywhere.
Try getting a fact or two next time.
"Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person. QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more remarkable.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it."
The fact that they were intended to be private would mean that they were feeling free to write openly. Yes. They feel freer to express themselves, means that you can take this as closer to what they feel.
No, they don't say, "Gosh, Bill. Let's call Soros and get our marching orders."
But they do talk about how bad it would be if there were Freedom of Information Acts in England and how they would dump their data before releasing it.
They do talk about massaging facts.
If this is just a normal scientific way of dealing with things, they would have said in their formal papers that they did these little tricks, because that is how science works. Indeed, anything that went into the publicly released results should have been part of the public data.
Unless the "tricks" are openly explained, "peer review" cannot function because they don't know how the results were reached.
For example, when Jones says he complete the trick of adding the real temps, did he mention that in any published works that this is an acceptable trick and that is how he reached his result? No. He never told the public that he was adding in these temps.
Did he ever publish anything based on not adding in the real temps? Surely that would be of some use in evaluating his technique. NO. He just slipped in new figures.
Real science there.
BOTTOM LINE. If it is such good research, why did they talk about the dangers of things like Freedom of Information Acts?
And that is his explanation that scientists always use the term "trick" to refer to a good way to deal with a problem.
I think that is bullshit. If scientists have a problem, they don't use a "trick." The re-do their research until it is accurate.
Gosh, we are 10 degrees off. Let's just add in 10 degrees as a trick and that will make it work.
Yeah. Sounds good to me.
One question for those who support this research.
If there was nothing wrong with their research, why were the fighting tooth and nail for years to keep the data secret?
The ultimate truth about science is that you reveal the basis of your research so that others can see how good your work is.
One of the very pillars of science is the ability for the work to be peer reviewed. If my research shows that a form of cancer will be retarded by X drug, the proof is we gave the drug to Y,000 people and compared it to Z,000 who did not get the drug. We factor in other things that may influence the process, such as family history and other known health issues. Because of the difference in recovery rate, we can conclude the effectiveness of the drug.
When it is peer reviewed, we reveal everything.
Imagine the uproar if a drug company did the little "trick" of adjusting the numbers of people who died when they were given the experimental drug to adjust the results to reflect what they believed was a more accurate result.
Imagine what plaintiffs attorney would do if the discovered that this information was kept from the FDA despite repeated requests.
Yeah, that's some trick.
You're glomming onto this like it's proof that global warming is a hoax, going as far as calling it "climategate" and calling Micael Mann a "faker".
It is what it is... I can't deny that it is an embarassment to ALL climatologists; but it's not not enough to repudiate global warming.
Those who don't believe in it will certainly take advantage to make it a much bigger issue than it is... not to say that it's not a significant issue, but not as huge as you'd like to make it out to be.
Let me ask you a question... Do you think it's possible; just a teeny-weenie bit possible, that the anti-global warming climatogogists who are in Big Oil's pocket's may have similar email exchanges that just haven't been hacked?
It's SO easy to cast stones at any faux pas made by people involved with something you oppose. If you like, I can cite a few things posted about Bush, just as true, that the conservatives went nuts about, accusing liberals of blowing all out of proportion.
This is not just "some" reseracher. He is very prominent one and the e-mails are with other prominent leaders in the field, so you know from the start it is not 100% isolated.
Yes, it is possible that the entire field is not corrupted, but it raises huge questions of how much is. Also, if the theory is good, why do they need to lie to prove it.
We are about to undertake one of the largest social engeneering experiments of all times, affecting what type of light bulb you can buy and whether the government can dictate your choice of television.
You cannot imagine how far this goes. Already, Brit figures are talking about limits on people's life time total of travel. If dogs produce CO2, how many dogs should people have? (That is my question, not the animal-crazy Brits. Yet.)
Maybe, before we spend a few trillion dollars and limit what people can do in every area of life we should go over this with a fine tooth comb.
Now, you had a good point. Scientists who dispute it may get money from "Big Oil," the magic words that end the argument, and that money may taint their research.
The answer is not to shout the ad hominem of "BIG OIL," but to look at their reserach with the same fine tooth ocmb and say why it is flawed.
It is equally possible that those scientists are right. Have both open up their research, and then you can know.
the thing is, that EVERY major scientific organization and university has supported the concept of global warming... EVERY ONE! Individual scientists have disagreed with it, but no group as a whole has.
What amazes me is that conservatives have no problem giving up certain rights like warrantless searches, wire taps, and the right of habeus corpus via the Patriot Act, but they bitch about the fact that they may, one day, have to use fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent ones.
Did you see the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still"? Bad movie, but it made one good point... we'll never change untill we're dangling over the precipice.
As for me, I'm buying cheap land in Arizona and Nevada, and waiting for it to become beach-front property.
First, there are numerous respected scientists who take issue with the theory. There is a new book out by one of the leading scientists in Australia (name escapes me. Old age. Sorry.) He regards the theory as flawed. In the past few years, I have read articles from professors at MIT, Harvard, and a dozen other presige places.
Spend half an hour as questioning, and you will find dozens of respected scientists who disagree.
And here is why I started being suspicious from the gitgo. When Gore said, "The debate is over." That is not science. The debate is never over.
Secondly, the computer models are flawed. There was an article recently about how all the global warming proponents are stymied by the recent 10 year cooling trend. They admit that this is happening, and they admit it is not part of the projection. Now, it is true that it may be a glitch. But they can't explain it, and it doesn't fit their projections. If their projections are already demonstrably inaccurate, how can you be sure of the long term.
There was something missing in all their research that cannot account for this. Maybe, just maybe, the research is flawed in other ways as well.
Finally, your jumping on the patriot act is just so "Let's revert to Bush." There are two flaws. First, the Patriot Act hasn't impacted people nearly as much as Global Warming Theory will.
I do what I want. Everyone I knows do what they want. None of my liberals have been able to tell me about one person in THEIR network that has been affected by THE EVIL PATRIOT ACT. The number of library records that they searched are miniscule. The number of e-mails they intercepted for overseas are minor. The number of bank records that they searched are infintesimal.
They can't search every bank record or library record. They have to focus on most likely, and that is a tiny, tiny number.
However, Gore & Co. will affect my life every day in a thousand ways. If the pattern goes the way it is already going, it will affect how often I can go to Europe, what kind of TV I can have, what kind of light bulb I can use, whether I can buy certain foods, whether Sacramento will control the heat in my house. (These are not my paranoid ravings. There are already suggestions by global warming theorists. And this is just the begining of what they want to do.) Basically, they want a say in anything that uses energy. WOW.
Secondly, the reality of the need for the Patriot Act was rather clearly demonstrated in NYC, and at the Pentagon, in the London and Madrid subways, and Bali, and Mumbai, and several plots in Germany (disrupted, thank God) and France (also foiled) and 100 other places that we have heard about.
Talk about a real threat.
I don't know if you recall the accounts after 9-11 about the training camps. To refresh your memory, tens of thousands of people received lethal training and went their way around the world. This is not conservative ranting, but the L.A. Times. There have been cells just last week that were broken up where people with U.S. passports were going oversees for terrorist training.
Do you think there is a real danger? Is it just a pre 9-11 world?
As I say, in light of the clearly demonstrated lethal danger, and th obvious desire on their part to try and try again, the miniscule rights I have given up are well worth it, considering the fact that for the life of me I can't even see how they affect me.
Because you always seem to missread or misunderstand what I say.
I CLEARLY stated that there were individual scinetist who disagreed wtih global warming, but no University or major scientific group. While not unanamous amongs every single scientist, it IS unanamous among Research Universities and Organizations.
Did it ever occur to you that these "hardships" you're afraid of can be overcome with good old capitalism? That given the incentive to do so, corporations can, and will, develop more efficient plasma TVs, better lightbulbs, airlplanes that carry more people while using less fuel? As I mentioned before, when Japan limited payments for MRIs to $98 and hospitial couldn't justify paying hundred of millions of Yen for such a small return, Voila! The MRI companies built cheaper machines! Wow, go figure!
And I love your attitude; "Well, me and my friends haven't had any trouble with the Patriot Act, so it's OK by me, but goll durn it, nobody's gonna tell me I can't use a 200 watt incandescent bulb in my lights"
Here's the problem with bad laws... they're still on the books when your party isn't in power. Three years from now, when it looks like Obama might have a tough time getting re-elected, you never know what he might do out of desperation... maybe he's a horn-dog and reads TER for the reviews, but occasionally drops in on the old P&R board, and finally says, "Damn that dncphill! I think I'll disappear him! And "poof"... you're gone, and the dank cell they put you in has a 40 Watt bare fluorescennt bulb dangling from the ceiling. Probable? No; but possible? With a bad law, anything is possible.
You have labeled me a conservative. I defy you to find a single instance of my siding with either of those issues.
You consider me a conservative and you made a blanket statement concerning all conservatives. Just because you didn't name me specifically doesn't change the fact that your blanket statement (as are almost all blanket statements) was innaccurate.
I've reread my reply to Phil twice, and I don't see where I referred to anyone other than Phil... I made no generalizations about anyone; I was addressing Phil's answer directly.
Unless you feel guilty by association, conservative "in general" never came up in my reply.
You said it. And you support Cap and Trade type legislation under which everything is possible.
No. I don't really care about light bulbs, per se. The question is if the government is so powerful to control little decisions like that, what is there that they can't control.
No, it isn't me and my buddies that aren't bothered by the Patriot Act. None of your buddies have been either. And none of theirs.
They had to reveal how many library records they looked at. It was something like three.
And from a law that they misuse to look at three library records you already have me in a dank cell.
The problem is my slippery slope is already here. Everything I have ever suggested is already law somewhere or a proposal by people very close to power.
In other words, all of my suggestions are real and current.
Yours are vague hypos of in three years maybe X will ....... Gosh, maybe it will be abused.
I just pit my real and current restrictions against your distant hypos.
Finally, yes there is a lot of agreement with the Psuedo-Scientists. Indeed, the UN group argees. They got their info from him. The U. of Penn. agrees. They were in cohoots witht the fraud.
How many groups that you are referring to did their own research and reached the conclusion 100% independently of the Tainted Crap. I bet none. One fraud report supports another.
Once the take over is complete what won’t they be able to control regarding personal behavior, all in the name of saving money or national interests?
You also have to understand that the fact that many other people agree is meaningless if the others ultimately base their agreement of the flawed data.
This tainted research is the heart of lots of other "scientific" consenus. For example, as explained in the following article, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rests on this research. Likewise this professor was in touch with others who are the peers that also are in agreement.
See how far it goes before you give up your car.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
I know you metaphorically qualified your assertion of my “glomming”, but I never once claimed this disproves global warming. Global warming, at least until a few years ago, is irrefutable. The man mad component is what’s in question, with or without climategate.
Phil’s rebuttal is correct. I’d add that the social changes in order to really be effective at reducing CO2 (that probably won’t change the temperature in the first place) will go far far beyond light bulbs and televisions. The required and eventual changes will dramatically alter standards of living. I joke about wiping your ass with washable rags or your hand, but that is the direction some with new found power are heading.
This is bigger than Michael Mann. It’s bigger than one research center. It’s bigger than one University. It is indeed a conspiracy. Probably the best measure of how wide spread the conspiracy goes is to examine how others are reacting to the news. How are others attempting to police this huge transgression of science? This needs to include an examination of 1) the media (can you hear the crickets?), 2) the peers of those involved (have you heard the justifications by some?), 3) the administrators of those involved, and 4) the governments of those involved (the last three requires the participation of a vigilant media)
The biggest thing that “climategate” illustrates is the truth of the main point I and others have been trying to make since the beginning, that there are a large political and economic components to the science on the proponent’s side. You make the observation that oil companies foster an economic force on the opponent’s side, yet when there is any challenge whatsoever to man made global warming, the response is and has always been “the SCINCE is conclusive (err it’s consensive). I just made up “consensive”, the adjective form of “consensus.”
For me, it’s not hard at all to believe that more “scientists” are involved in similar tactics. My short term hope is that you and others will begin to believe that politics plays at least some role in other scientist’s work. If not as blatantly and fraudulently as these folks, then in other ways that can also affect the results. But most importantly, people need to see that if scientists can be motivated to pull such shenanigans then non-scientists (i.e. politicians, corporations and even countries) will be more than inclined to cherry pick and prune the science to serve their own purposes.
Maybe I'm not making myself understandable. My bad. I don't agrue that political and economic issues don't cloud the science. I don't disagree that more scientists may be involved in "similar tactics". Unfortunately science doesn't exist in a vacuum, and I'll readily agree that politics plays a BIG role in most scientific work.
But 90% of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming... NINTY PERCENT! Maybe I'm just being naive, but I can't overlook that. Having a background in science, I tend to belive in the scientific process.
During WWII, many of our greatest scientists, including many who worked on the Manhattan Project, felt that the exchange of scientific ideas should have no borders or political influence. I think that many scientists still feel that way today.
And to sit back and see how much shit we've pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late 19th century and NOT think that somehow we've contributed to the problem is just counter-intuitive to me.
Just out of curiosity, do you think the banning of CFC's was unnecessary and has had no effect on slowing down the hole in the ozone layer? Has it been a hardship on most people? And do you feel that the hole is of any significance anyway?
-- Modified on 11/30/2009 6:50:24 AM
I too have "background in science". I'm an engineer of 34 years. The process that global warming, err excuse me we can't call it that anymore (why? Politics.), climate change has gone through has been far from the typical scientific method. When the majority of your 90% ( which I doubt it's that high) claim they are no longer listening and indeed trying to silence the 10% it's no longer "science". A true scientist never stops looking for (or at least keeps an open mind to) reasons why he might be wrong.
Many scientists feel as you say. The problem is that they almost all work for organizations that are by their very nature political or they owe their funding to political sources. This is why the "organizations" are on the GW band while most of the 10% are independents.
I don't see the linkage between CFCs and CO2. I also thought is was a good thing when our industries quit dumping flammable chemicals into the rivers and they quit catching on fire and fish quit dying (an improvement started by a Republican BTW). In both cases the cause and effect was observable and the costs to mitigate was measurable and definitive, all quite dissimilar to CO2 which is naturally occurring, ney actually required for our ecosystem to survive.
Me? Mechanical Engineer, graduated Drexel in '74... worked for Boeing-Vertol designing helicopter rotar blades. Got laid off, started selling audio equipment (a hobby... I was an audiophile), and made a LOT more money as a salesman than as an engineer, and had a LOT more fun! Never looked back. But still... '74 to '09, got you beat by one year! LOL.
Look, here's the thing... I'm almost 59 years old, I'm a diabetic with high blood-pressure. I probably won't see 70. So this is all moot... Global Warming or not, I won't live to see the effects, and I have no children to worry about.
For me, this is just an exercise in logic and common sense, and argument for argument's sake. I do find it interesting, however, to see that over the last 15 years this has become an issue of conservative vs. liberal, instead of scientst vs. scientist. Politicians have made this a football, and both sides have been pulled into the game. I truly beleive man-made global warming is real, but what I think doesn't really matter... it's no longer a legitimate debate.
I really doubt that we'll ever reach the draconian measures that the anti-GW doom sayers rant against. We're too selfish as a people to EVER allow such solutions to pass into laws. NO politican will risk the consequences of telling people what kind of lightbulb they MUST use, or limit the amount of travel one can take in his/her lifetime. It's taking things to their ILLOGICAL conclusions.
But let's examine some of those proposals... would it REAALLY be all that bad if, like CFCs, incandescent bulbs were outlawed? What's the down side? Some of these suggestion actually make sense. Restrict travel? Of course not. Force aircraft manufacturers to make more fuel efficient planes? Good idea!
The samrt thing is not to put restrictions on citizens, but make the corportations be more responsible.
Remember when the auto companies fought tooth and nail against air bags? How they said thet the added costs would be prohibitive? Now, the auto makers compete with each other about how this model has front, side, back, and under bags. And airbags save lives... no one would deny that.
The simple fact is that if man-made global warming is real, we're all fucked anyway.
-- Modified on 11/30/2009 6:49:29 PM
It’s easy to see why it’s liberal vs. conservative
But first, think about this. There’s been global warming measured on Mar’s, Jupiter and Pluto
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
No extra man made CO2 there. Why won’t Al Gore and his friends even TALK about it?
Why are conservatives up in arms (above and beyond the fact that the science is NOT conclusive, but only consensive, adjective form of consensus)?
Because almost all of the so called mitigation techniques are either a liberal’s dream grab for power or a liberal redistribution of wealth. Much of the power grab and redistribution won’t even help reduce CO2.
You cite a few seemingly innocuous examples that you could entitle “So what’s the harm?”, when in fact the plans are calling for the spending (i.e. redistribution) of trillions. And all will absolutely ZERO guarantee (or even a small promise) that the expenditures will solve anything. This truly IS going to cost every family thousands of dollars PER YEAR all because of the fear mongering that “we can’t afford to wait.” Most all the changes are ones that liberals welcome even if there were no such thing as GW. There really ARE people out there that think you should wipe your ass with a rag and then rinse it out, LOL.
The world is going to wean it’s self off petroleum all by itself, and market forces will cause it to happen. Yes, governments should help and nudge so as to prevent global conflicts and wars. But trying to force such a massive shift in socioeconomics as fast as the U.N is attempting without popular support is ludicrous. It’s like air bags. People are indeed willing to pay extra (a little extra) provided they can see and feel and touch a benefit.
I personally think we should embrace T. Boone Picken’s idea for a move to vehicles (initially government fleets) powered by natural gas for the next 20 to 50 years, but that’s not radical enough for the libs. Can’t drill for more oil short term? Can’t build nukes? Nope not radical enough.
We can all switch to CF bulbs tomorrow and it won’t reduce the temperature diddily squat. If it makes economic sense then by all means let’s do it. But if draconian measures are needed and we do NOT take them, then why take ANY measure that doesn’t make economic sense or quality of life sense? As BizzaroSuperdude points out, the ONLY way to make any impact (if it’s even possible) is to control population.
All good points... but controling population growth is a pipe dream. Most of the population growth is coming from non-industrialized nations. There are benefits to large families in an agrarian society... more kids, more workers in the fields, larger crop yields.
Do a google search on, "Ohio light bulb law".
"NO politician will risk the consequences of telling people what kind of lightbulb they Must use, or limit the amount of travel one can take in his/her lifetime".
The Ohio state government passed a law last year that mandated a reduction in energy consumption, and allowed the energy companies to recover the costs of compact flourescent bulbs, and the energy savings from their use. Part of the energy bill requires power companies to meet energy-efficiency mandates, reducing usage by 22.2 percent by the end of 2025. In their attempt to comply, FirstEnergy, an Ohio utility, sent two $3.50 CFL bulbs to costumers, and charged them $21.00 for the bulbs, whether they wanted them or not. The $14.00 difference was to pay back the utility for the electricity customers WOULD NOT USE because they had the new bulbs. But if customers don't use the bulbs, or already have their own, they still have to pay the fee. That's just for two bulbs. Can you imagine paying for a whole house/garage/tool shed, etc.?
As far as travel, I well remember 1973, when you could buy gas only on odd/even days, and none anywhere on Sundays. I spent two days in Chicago because I couldn't get any gas to get out of town, thanks to Jimmy Carter. According to the then experts, we should all be riding a horse and buggy by now, because the world's oil supply should have been depleted. What a crock.
Regarding Ohio, that was the utility company, not the government, and I'm sure if it was fought in court the consumers would win.
As for the gas shortage in '73, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. That was an artificially created shortage by the oil companies to drive up prices, and it was successful; when the shortage was over, prices came back down, but never to the price it was before the "shortage"> And the gas, for the most part, wasn't being rationed... once you got to the pumps, you could fill up.
But regardless, it's not germain to what we're discussing here.
I lived in Ohio from 1988-2008, and it was the state government that was pushing energy reduction, and the CFL bulbs. The energy companies were a way the politicians could dupe Joe the plumber into thinking they had nothing to do with forcing the CFL bulbs on the customer. The law remains in place.
In 1973, the oil companies may have created the shortage, but it was the federal/state governments that limited/restricted travel by limiting the day/amount of gas you could buy. I made 4 coast to coast trips that year, and believe me, if you made it to the pumps on the government mandated correct day, in some instances, you COULD NOT fill up the tank. North/South Dakota was limited to 10 gallons a time, as were some cities in California, Nebraska,and Kansas.
I believe it is germain, due to the fact you were mentioning politicians putting themselves at risk, and government limiting/restricting travel.
Oh, don't forget to check my grammar. Lol.
A "vigilant media" is an oxymoron.
And no big deal, but Michael Mann is a movie director, Micael Mann is the scientist. Just don't want people sending nasty emails to one of my favorite directors! 
They are now, for the most part, DEAD.
To hijack the thread for a moment......remember the man that hi-jacked the Northwest Airlines Boeing 727, and parachuted out with the money, D.B. Cooper? The media fucked that up also. The passenger manifest had no D.B. Cooper, but it did list a D. Cooper. Some reporter slipped in an extra 'B', and it stuck. No one double checked it for accuracy. The Captain of that flight was a friend of mine, so I got that first hand. Unfortunately, Scotty, (Capt. Scott), passed away several years ago. Good man.
A radio show last night was talking about trying to find the flight attendant. . .
OK it was Art Bell, LOL
Anyway, some guy claimed to have a voice recording of someone though to be D.(B.) Cooper. She supposedly talked with him as he prepared to exit the plane and might remember his voice.
The gig is up...these so-called scientists have been exposed as liars.
Conclusion: Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is a political posision that cannot be taken seriously without further, and irrefutable, evidence. These guys have fudged their data, and that is now exposed.
That being said, I don't give a shit one way or another. I have another 20-30 years of life left, and this TER...my main concern is getting laid by as many quality providers as possible. Fuck the rest of this bullshit!