<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: Frontline Responds to Complaints on Oct 23 “Climate of Doubt”: Here, the Rebuttal to Frontline that PBS Ombudsman Won’t Put Online (*update) </title> <atom:link href="https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/</link> <description>All the junk that’s fit to debunk.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2015 00:34:21 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator> <item> <title> By: Russell Cook (@questionAGW) </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39273</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Russell Cook (@questionAGW)]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:46:17 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39273</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39272">Reality check</a>. Bingo, the hypocrisy of the AGW'ers is exposed for all to see. When it supports their agenda, they are against 'big oil', but when it appears they can claim 'big oil' has changed its mind (rather speculate that 'big oil' caved into political pressure), their original argument remains unproven, that 'big oil' paid skeptics to lie about AGW in the same manner that 'big tobacco' paid shill experts to lie about the hazards of smoking. The failure to prove the corruption of skeptic climate scientists means that the mainstream media never had an excuse to largely exclude them from their reports over the last 20 years - the point I pursued in my "PBS and Global Warming Skeptics' Lockout" http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/pbs_and_global_warming_skeptics_lockout.html]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39272">Reality check</a>.</p> <p>Bingo, the hypocrisy of the AGW’ers is exposed for all to see. When it supports their agenda, they are against ‘big oil’, but when it appears they can claim ‘big oil’ has changed its mind (rather speculate that ‘big oil’ caved into political pressure), their original argument remains unproven, that ‘big oil’ paid skeptics to lie about AGW in the same manner that ‘big tobacco’ paid shill experts to lie about the hazards of smoking. The failure to prove the corruption of skeptic climate scientists means that the mainstream media never had an excuse to largely exclude them from their reports over the last 20 years – the point I pursued in my “PBS and Global Warming Skeptics’ Lockout” <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/pbs_and_global_warming_skeptics_lockout.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/pbs_and_global_warming_skeptics_lockout.html</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Reality check </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39272</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Reality check]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:36:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39272</guid> <description><![CDATA[I again want to know why skeptics are on the payroll of "big oil" but " big oil" is putting up wind turbines, has sustainability departments, has alternate energy departments, etc. If "big oil" hates environmentalists, why are they doing these things? And why aren't environmentalists furious about this tainted money? The "big oil" lie is how much the environmentalists benefit from oil. The 1000 turbine wind plant about to scath the western ecosystem is being financed by a BILLIONAIRE who got his money from oil. Environmentalists love big oil--it's where their money comes from. Don't believe their lies about hating oil.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I again want to know why skeptics are on the payroll of “big oil” but ” big oil” is putting up wind turbines, has sustainability departments, has alternate energy departments, etc. If “big oil” hates environmentalists, why are they doing these things? And why aren’t environmentalists furious about this tainted money? The “big oil” lie is how much the environmentalists benefit from oil. The 1000 turbine wind plant about to scath the western ecosystem is being financed by a BILLIONAIRE who got his money from oil. Environmentalists love big oil–it’s where their money comes from. Don’t believe their lies about hating oil.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Russell Cook (@questionAGW) </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39271</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Russell Cook (@questionAGW)]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:07:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39271</guid> <description><![CDATA[Granted, the other side groups together better, but they do so around a ponzi scheme that only survives on constant faulty science narratives AND unsupportable accusations against skeptic scientists. That is precisely why I try to get the skeptic scientists to recognize how AGW'ers group around premises that are built on a foundation of sand. It is critical for them to not only expose the faulty science, they must also scatter the AGW group-think by exposing the who, how & why of the demonstratively false accusation that skeptics are on the payroll of 'big oil'. Remove the faith that keeps the AGW ponzi scheme alive, and the group-think scatters in an embarrassing manner, no less than exactly what happens in the video I link to in my comment above.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Granted, the other side groups together better, but they do so around a ponzi scheme that only survives on constant faulty science narratives AND unsupportable accusations against skeptic scientists. That is precisely why I try to get the skeptic scientists to recognize how AGW’ers group around premises that are built on a foundation of sand. It is critical for them to not only expose the faulty science, they must also scatter the AGW group-think by exposing the who, how & why of the demonstratively false accusation that skeptics are on the payroll of ‘big oil’. Remove the faith that keeps the AGW ponzi scheme alive, and the group-think scatters in an embarrassing manner, no less than exactly what happens in the video I link to in my comment above.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Brad Tittle </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39270</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brad Tittle]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:29:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39270</guid> <description><![CDATA[@Russell Cook -- The problem with going on the attack is that the people on the attack are not in the editing room. Michael Crichton discussed the means of combatting the editing room in his book Airframe. Basically he advised to do what the skeptics did. It is too easy to take "Going on the attack" and twist it into "Look how insane they are!" when you have the shears. There are some trying comes coming our way. Matt Briggs (wmbriggs.com) has a good point that sciencism has taken hold and science has lost. I have had too many discussions of climate change where people send me to ClimateSkeptic and say "See". When you try and engage them in first principles, they either don't have enough time or don't have enough background. The other side groups together better. The skeptics have a tendencies to be free thinkers. This means that if you get 3 of us in a room, we can sit around and debate the correct answer for days while the other side is unified in their front and winning more people to their cause. You can make a believer in AGW. Skeptics (whether of Climate Change or "things that go bump in the night") make themselves.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Russell Cook — The problem with going on the attack is that the people on the attack are not in the editing room. Michael Crichton discussed the means of combatting the editing room in his book Airframe. Basically he advised to do what the skeptics did. It is too easy to take “Going on the attack” and twist it into “Look how insane they are!” when you have the shears. </p> <p>There are some trying comes coming our way. Matt Briggs (wmbriggs.com) has a good point that sciencism has taken hold and science has lost. </p> <p>I have had too many discussions of climate change where people send me to ClimateSkeptic and say “See”. When you try and engage them in first principles, they either don’t have enough time or don’t have enough background. </p> <p>The other side groups together better. The skeptics have a tendencies to be free thinkers. This means that if you get 3 of us in a room, we can sit around and debate the correct answer for days while the other side is unified in their front and winning more people to their cause. You can make a believer in AGW. Skeptics (whether of Climate Change or “things that go bump in the night”) make themselves.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: edonthewayup </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39269</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[edonthewayup]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 03:39:15 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39269</guid> <description><![CDATA[Reblogged this on <a href="http://edgarmpress.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/588/" rel="nofollow">Edonurwayup's Blog</a> and commented: More light on the great debate on the fallacy of global warming.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reblogged this on <a href="http://edgarmpress.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/588/" rel="nofollow">Edonurwayup's Blog</a> and commented:<br /> More light on the great debate on the fallacy of global warming.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Russell Cook (@questionAGW) </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39268</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Russell Cook (@questionAGW)]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:04:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39268</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39267">scarletknight72</a>. Exactly the point that I wish my skeptic friends at the Heartland conference (many of whom I've exchanged several emails with) had been aware of before becoming victims of Frontline. With all due respect to them, they were too polite to the Frontline interviewers, when they should have considered those interviews as being veiled attacks. The program might never have made it to completion had they instead gone on the offense in a manner not terribly different that what is seen in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HWlqiv-YL7c#t=59s]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39267">scarletknight72</a>.</p> <p>Exactly the point that I wish my skeptic friends at the Heartland conference (many of whom I’ve exchanged several emails with) had been aware of before becoming victims of Frontline. With all due respect to them, they were too polite to the Frontline interviewers, when they should have considered those interviews as being veiled attacks. The program might never have made it to completion had they instead gone on the offense in a manner not terribly different that what is seen in this video: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HWlqiv-YL7c#t=59s" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HWlqiv-YL7c#t=59s</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: scarletknight72 </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39267</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[scarletknight72]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:34:18 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39267</guid> <description><![CDATA[it all boils down that Front line is not objective in this argument and will Gin Up the AGW position regardless of the data.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it all boils down that Front line is not objective in this argument and will Gin Up the AGW position regardless of the data.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Johan </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2012/11/frontline-responds-to-complaints-on-oct-23-climate-of-doubt-here-the-rebuttal-to-frontline-that-pbs-ombudsman-wont-put-online/#comment-39266</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Johan]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:21:02 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=32194#comment-39266</guid> <description><![CDATA[Regarding the demand that climate sceptics (or we should rather be called realists!) should publish in peer-reviewed journals, I am quoting verbatim an E-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann: "The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage—as you knew. De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently, as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is!". Just google "Costella climategate" and look for it. So much for peer-reviewed climate science literature. Incredible, to say the least!]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the demand that climate sceptics (or we should rather be called realists!) should publish in peer-reviewed journals, I am quoting verbatim an E-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann: “The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage—as you knew. De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently, as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is!”. Just google “Costella climategate” and look for it.<br /> So much for peer-reviewed climate science literature. Incredible, to say the least!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>