The article is too long to copy and paste the whole thing. It goes into very lengthy and detailed explanations, and I highly encourage you to read the whole thing.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
“Climategate”
Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
December 10, 2009
Summary
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
- The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
Originally posted by monster truckThe difference is your link is to an activist organization that picked a side. Factcheck.org is NOT an activist oranization one way or the other on this issue. They cover political issues, political adds and debates and they provide unbiased research to call out both sides on lies and false statements.
So where lies the truth?
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
"Follow the money."
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperFactcheck unbiased?
The difference is your link is to an activist organization that picked a side. Factcheck.org is NOT an activist oranization one way or the other on this issue. They cover political issues, political adds and debates and they provide unbiased research to call out both sides on lies and false statements.
Funded by Annenberg Foundation.
Echo Chamber funded by Annenberg Foundation.
Sure, they're unbiased.😉
Originally posted by monster truckAn "echo chamber" who's President and CEO is Leonore Annenberg, a prominent Republican who served in President Reagan's aministration and who donated $2300 to John McCain's campaign.
Factcheck unbiased?
Funded by Annenberg Foundation.
Echo Chamber funded by Annenberg Foundation.
Sure, they're unbiased.😉
Also, the "echo chamber" has published countless findings like this most recent one:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/obamas-economic-speech/
Obama’s Economic Speech
We deconstruct "shovel ready," "up to" and other misleading phrases.
December 8, 2009
Look, I realize that since Factcheck.org calls out both sides on their BS, including Republicans - that the GOP talking heads have told you to think factcheck.org is "biased." But just because someone like Rush Limbaugh or a blogger on redstates.com sticks something in your mouth doesn't mean you have to swollow it.
Originally posted by monster truckExactly, and the facts are:
Gather the info from all available sources and decide for yourself.
Nice job slipping in the personal BS.😀
- The President and CEO is a prominent Republican, served in the Reagan administration and donated the maximum allowable amount to John McCain's campaign.
- Factcheck.org publishes countless articles who are both in favor of, and against both Democrats and Republicans alike.
This whole "factcheck.org is in the tank" crap came about when they destroyed the birther's arguments.
Edit: Looks like she died while I was deployed. RIP
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIndeed it's another 'activist' website.
So is it your contention that the earth is not warming or that we're not the cause?
Edit: BTW, that's another activist website.
An intentional act designed to support or oppose a controversial issue.
Nothing wrong with that, right?
My contention is that there's plenty of information out there regarding the GW issue and it's difficult sorting through all the BS in order to determine if the earth is indeed warming and if so how much if any impact the human race is having.
Instead of either side using the issue to further social or economic change regardless of the cause, I'd prefer to deal with only the issue itself. But hey, that's just me.🙂