*Sigh*

Alison, please check your sources. The Calgary Herald is a wonderful propaganda mill for Alberta's petroleum industry; I'm not sure what was said at the conference being referenced, but I imagine that this is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright lie.

...I suppose you're on the denial bandwagon too, now? Those crazy scientists and their ideas about short wave length radiation passing through the atmosphere, being re-emitted as long wave length radiation, and then being absorbed by CO2. What could they possibly know?

Bunch of gobbledegook.

Back to reading the Bible.

 Compare the article's quotes and representation of Dr. Pachauri to this transcript:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-unccs-09.pdf

Whether or not you happen to believe that Pachauri has done his research properly, does this sound like an 'about face' to you? Can you even find the quotes that the Herald noted?

It's fucking garbage. It's Fox News brand news. 

Y'know what, I'm so fucking sick of this... does anyone know how to file a legal complaint in Canada? I'm serious. That article was an outright fabrication, and that's totally illegal. 

.

Now, that was my mistake, as I thought for some reason I read Pachauri's name in the story. Apologies to the Herald.

Now, your turn - and be aware that I'm just in One Of Those Dreadful Moods right now Alison, and that your answer here is pretty damn important.

Do you support the publishing of libelous papers that print lies about what a person has actually said (bear in mind that the Herald in that article alleged to be printing direct quotes)? And do you personally believe the what the article has suggested (that the IPCC has about-faced on it's position)? 

EDIT: There's a time limit on my generosity tonight, Alison. I need your answer in another hour or so, because that's when I'm off to bed. 

 No. But depending on your answer, I was considering spending my evening deleting all of your posts (past and present) and asking you how it feel when someone else denies you the ability to communicate.

Except it isn't; well, not by Latif's estimations, anyway.

Read this article:

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/anatomy-of-a-lie-how-morano-and-gunter-spun-latif-out-of-contro/

And please stop spreading lies about climate change.

It's destroying my favorite park. 

Lying about what someone has or has not said is denying them their right to expression. Every single person who picks up and reads that Herald article is going to be told that Latif has said something that he hasn't said, denying him the ability to convey his research.

You'll note that 'there may not be much of an additional warming' is not the same thing as saying 'we're entering into a cooling period'. 

You may also want to read the further correspondence letter by Latif:

That doesn't sound like an about-face to me. It sounds like an explanation of how the forecasting works and what it's limitations are.

ok, this is getting silly.  people come on here and throw out bullshit and misquote sources and each other all the time and nobody gets this worked up.  i've called out people for misquoting or misrepresenting marx several times on this site, and while it annoys me, i don't think if i were a mod i would fuck with somebody's post for it.  it's not cap's fault if the article is bullshit and it's pretty high-handed to attack her for a newspaper's views just because this particular topic happens to hit a raw nerve.

So I am probably going to lose on this one but I choose to actually discuss the articles at hand.

When I started the first one, I was initially thinking that I would not read the second one until I had already made my own “spot the bullshit” post addressing the issues with the first one. Sadly, by the time I got to the end of it, I realized that it was actually such a fluff piece that there is not even much substance to bother trying to refute.

Even so, the major point on which it fails is in the title. Regardless of what the one person actually said, it was only about what one person said. To use the plural “scientists” suggest that it has something to do with there being more than one of them connected to this story. The fact that there is only one scientist involved in this story is itself a journalistic problem.

Even if there were more scientists involved in this story, how many have to be involved before it even suggests that there might be an issue worthy of looking further into? Two scientists means little here, as does a couple of dozen scientists. And honestly, there are at least a couple of dozen scientists on the IPCC who have made quote mineable statements.

When there are a couple hundred scientists saying in no uncertain terms that we need to step back and look at the data again, that will get my attention in a very different way. However, the fact is that global climate is a complicated matter and I would not really be surprised if lots of the people doing the work were looking at data which is not fully understood and asking hard to answer questions. The last I heard, that is what we are paying them for.

Does it get sucked into your head like some sort of comic book villainess? Because that would be pretty cool. If you had a yellow suit with a cape and big helmet shaped like a pineapple and then a beam shoots out of it into someone's eyes and fries their brain when it sucks all the information out and downloads it into you leaving them with a head the size of a tennis ball.  Then you just fly away laughing "Ha ha ha you pathetic fools..."

   Cool, I like it.. Now I know I'm not the only one here with a twisted sense of humor coupled with an over-active imagination.