Here, let me add my take:

LOSERS: Mainstream media for not reporting the facts of climategate, for spiking the story until they could all get on the same sheet of music “emails are bad, but they don’t mean anything”.

LOSER: Al Gore for calling Palin a “denier” when she clearly is not; Palin never claimed to be a climate change denier, she understands climate change but doesn’t concur that it is part of the “man caused” disasters that Algore is pushing.

WINNER: Palin; not only did her book go platinum, she is the most talked about person around town. She did a magnificent job on the Tonight show; never claimed to be a birther; and isn’t a denier.

WINNER: The American public for yet again recognizing the “mainstream media” is part of the climategate scandal.

LOSER: Obama — Rasmussen has him at -19 now and sinking fast.

LOSER: Kathlene Kane for not getting the facts right.

Right on TfT, right on.

Notice how Mediaite isn’t reporting this tiny little bit of news out today: (ya gotta remember who’s running this site, NBC’s uber-left Dan Abrams of course)

Barack Obama’s presidential approval index number has dropped to -19.
Obama has dropped a stunning 49 points in less than one year.
In less than a year Obama has lost the independents. Only 21% strongly support his radical agenda while 49% of independents strongly disapprove.
Rasmussen reported:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

Today is the second straight day that Obama’s Approval Index rating has fallen to a new low. Prior to the past two days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends).

The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.

Real Clear Politics has more on Obama’s decline.

Losers: Calm and rational people who took the time to actually research the controversy to discover it is all a bunch of crap. Only to face the facts that people are more interested in sensationalism than in intellectual discourse. (Unfortunate)

Losers: Legislators who have to deal with scientific illiterates blocking relevant legislation.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html (Posted for the hell of it)

what a terribly biased article…

climategate is a “right-wing conspiracy theory” because the MSM and democrats refuse to discuss it?

Sarah Palin is a loser for being “called out” by al gore, the face of the the global warming movement who refuses to debate anyone on the science?

i also like that you use the term “denier”, likening global warming to a religion…

Snipzor says:
December 13, 2009 at 10:23 pm

I took a look at the link you provided. One question… and it’s a biggie, because without the answer, I refuse to even read it… who wrote it? All I can see is that it’s an “Editorial,” but I don’t know whose words.

Are they from the GW lobby? Did Al Gore pen it? Is it from a group of scientists? Is it from Robert Gibbs? Isn’t that a basic question we/you should ask?

@ImNotBlue

I think the real question is whether or not you’ve ever read a scientific journal in your life. Or have done two seconds of on-website research in the journal. I’ll give you a head start.

http://www.nature.com/nature/about/editors/
http://www.nature.com/nature/about/

Extremely well-put ripstop! This is science: core samples, measuring, deducing and making a reasonable theory that we are at least PART of the problem. I think that many who emphatically deny global warming is man-made simply don’t want it to be so. Sorry, we can’t treat the planet the way we have since the industrial revolution without some side effects. Whether you believe the prevailing scientific consensus or not, isn’t this common sense? And, if we do clean up our act, all we’ve done is made a better world for all living things present and future.
vitamin c

As with pretty much all unsigned editorials, it presents a consensus of the editorial board. But way to avoid engaging with substance.

TFT
Thanks for the post–Im going to print it out and carry it around. Next time sommeone tries to refute the notion that “conservative thought” is an oxymoron, I’ll let you do the talking.
C’mon. If the two party system is going to survive, we need to engage in honest debate,. We need to stop blaming the media, and please please, let’s stop “making stuff up” as your girl Sarah would put it.
Let’s begin by admitting that Sarah Palin–lovely though she may be to some–was not ready for prime time. It was a risk for McCain to pick her. Could have been brilliant but it wasn’t. It was a Dan Quayle type screwwup. Let’s concede it and move on.
And as for the climate thing–let’s get the facts.
Sticking our fingers in our ears and yelling “la la la” doesn’t quallify as debate.

Good use of the word scuttlebutt.

“Climategate” is a prime example of that the “liberal media” doesnt exist. This was pure grade A complete BS given time on prime time news shows, spreading false information and paranoia to a subject that’s incredibly politicized when the science is already clear on the issue. Those emails don’t prove or do jack squat. All they prove is that science deniers want to believe whatever they want to believe in themselves. Sad state of affairs both for the media and for society.

By the way, I support Palin 2012. I want her to run more than anything in the world. It’s going to be awesome (and hilarious).

Vidiot says:
December 14, 2009 at 7:48 am
As with pretty much all unsigned editorials, it presents a consensus of the editorial board. But way to avoid engaging with substance.

Still looking for something to complain about, huh Vidiot? I beat you in the other debate… you still haven’t given me a reason why it’s a “good thing,” and now you’re grasping at straws. I’m sorry to have frustrated you so much.

Anyway, is that the “consensus” view of the website? Nature is a pretty big operation… so they ALL agree with this, and this comes from ALL of them? Or is it just one editor? I want to know who’s saying what, before I deal with the substance.

Just imagine if we were talking about Afghanistan, instead of GW… and you read an article saying we needed more troops, and Obama was wrong wrong wrong, and so on. Then imagine if the article was written by Colin Powell… what do you think your reaction would be? What if it was Cheney? What if it was Joe Biden? What if it was an unnamed editor from a news magazine? The author is important information… and you know it. Stop trying to pick a fight to make up for past losses, and move on.

allabout says:
December 14, 2009 at 9:35 am

What does this have to do with anything?

m says:
December 14, 2009 at 11:33 am

It took how long before the story made it to the news? They waited until there was a strong enough response from the GW advocates and the White House before they said anything!

Of course, when the NYTimes heard a rumor about John McCain… they were happy to put that on the front page right away. THAT’S the bias… journalistic restraint applied to stories differently depending on the subject.

You’re obviously delusional, but that’s hardly surprising. I’m not trying to pick a fight — you seem to do the trolling just fine around here — but that’s what it means when it’s an unsigned editorial. In every publication I’ve ever heard of. Yes, the author is important, and it’s a good thing to see who they are and what interests they may have…but if the author isn’t given, it reflects the collective judgment of the editorial board.

Here, let me Google that for you:

About the editors

Like the other Nature titles, Nature has no external editorial board. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Information about the scientific background of the editors may be found here.

I’m guessing that M. Mitchell Waldrop likely wrote the editorial, and it was approved by other senior editors. He’s only been to two colleges instead of Sarah Palin’s four, but his credentials seem solid.

You’re not frustrating me, except for my wondering why I waste my time and breath on you, since you obviously have your ears packed full of steaming bullshit.

“What does this have to do with anything?”
My point exactly.
We’re talking about climategate , Tft—not the liberal media, darling Sarah, or the duly elected President. (sorry, pal, that’s a fact).
Your answer to climategate is that Obama’s poll numbers are falling?
REALLY?
ImNotBlue said it first:
“What does this have to do with anything?”

Vidiot says:
December 14, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Every day you get a little angrier and angrier (swearing now in your posts… next little digital spittle will cover your posts). I hope your blood pressure is okay, I’d hate to be doing permanent damage.

Anyway… great, you found the guy who most likely wrote the piece. What Sarah Palin has to do with that, I’m not sure… other than to once again prove that you hate her so much, you’ll do anything to talk about her… irrationality is pretty easy to prove in this case. But moving on, Mr. Waldrop (if he did in fact write this) seems like a fine scientist. Good to know he actually has the credentials needed to speak intelligently, don’t you think? You get so angry just because I ask a basic question… yeesh, what’s gonna happen when someone asks you something hard… like to give a good reason for something? Oh that’s right, you’ll turn tail. Nevermind.

So let’s take a look at the article itself, shall we? First off, this Waldrop seems kinda frustrated and angry. Be that as it may, there are some interesting things he says:

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.

Apparently Mr. Waldrop doesn’t think that the public has a right to know what the research says… only what the scientists say it says. That’s putting a lot of power in the hands of some unknown folks… not sure if I like that.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions.

Agreed. The climate researchers were/are not doing a good job in publishing data and telling the 100% truth.

One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results.

This seems like quite the excuse. I’d like to see the context of this email and “trick” before I think that the author was using some other definition.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media,

And what “eruption” would that be? Man, if he thinks there has been an “eruption” no wonder he sees horrible doom and gloom only hours away… a bit of an exaggeration, no?

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values.

So… Waldrop thinks that the emails show that under pressure to find a certain conclusion, the scientists involved were willing to “act in ways that undermine scientific values,” and “lack tolerance” towards people who don’t agree with their research. This says two things… (1) it agrees with what we’ve been saying all along, they’ve been fudging data to find a specific result, not the truth… and (2) if the scientists “lack tolerance” of people OUTSIDE the scientific business, they must REALLY “lack tolerance” for people INSIDE the field. This goes to show the level of pressure scientists are facing from their colleagues to find certain results, and perhaps why only a few of them are willing to risk their careers to go against the desired results.

There… that’s my analysis. Feel better?

allabout says:
December 14, 2009 at 5:48 pm

I think if you read the actual article from this thread, and the comment from TfT… you’d understand the reference and the relevance. You seem to have missed the point completely.

Really?