Maddow debunks much bull being floated about.  She says much of what we have heard about all sorts of scandals are mostly ‘bull pucky.  She lambastes the ‘unmooring of facts from politics’ and decries the ‘triumph of fake politics.’

What ever became of the thousands of data entries in England that were supposedly contrived? You know, the ones disproving climate change theories? The British Parliament investigated and found no falsified information.  

Acorn has shut down (imagine that with no money).   However, the California AG got unedited information and it seems that much of the truth lay on the editing floor.  Gov. Schwarzenegger apparently became unhinged over the pimp stories morning, noon and night so he called on his AG to investigate. It seems there was much ado over nothing, but mission accomplished.  I understand the politics of personal destruction.  One doesn’t even have to leave Prince William County to witness them.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

23 Thoughts to “Rachel Maddow on Climate-gate and Acorn-gate”

  1. Wolverine

    Now, let me tell you what Rachel Maddow failed to tell you in that video about the British “climategate” investigation. The “U.K. Panel” cited in the New York Times headline is actually the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. That committee has 14 members as follows: eight Labour Party; two Liberal Democrat Party; 3 Conservative Party; one Independent. The committee is chaired by Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. The two strongest political supporters in the U.K. of climate change and governmental action thereon are the Labour Party (the party in power) and the Liberal Democrat Party. In fact, the Liberal Democrat Party, of which Mr. Willis is a member, is so strong on this issue that it criticizes Labour for not being strong enough. Both parties were enthusiastic players at the recent Copenhagen conference.

    Chairman Willis admitted for the record that the committee investigation of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) consisted of one single day REPEAT one single day of oral testimony (24 March 2010, with the report issued on 31 March 2010) and that the resulting report clearly lacked the in-depth investigation which they hoped would come out of more extensive examinations by other investigative bodies. The report tentatively exonerated the CRU on the main issues but also criticized it on others. It also included, in essence, the phrase”as far as we can tell.” Ten out of 14 members of this committee are members of the parties which are the strongest official supporters of governmental action on climate change.

    Let us compare this to a hypothetical American political scenario. A committee of the House of Representatives chaired by, let us say, Henry A. Waxman and with a Democratic Party majority, announces that the committee believes that the recently passed health care reform bill will most certainly NOT add to the Federal deficit and the national debt. But Mr. Waxman also admits that this judgement is based on only a single day of oral testimony before the committee and that the committee opinion lacks the kind of depth which the committee hopes might be found in other, outside investigations. Mr. Waxman himself uses the term “as far as we can tell” with reference to that one day of oral testimony.

    What you have seen on this video is Rachel Maddow giving you her version of the “faux news” which many on this blog so often decry with regard to another cable network.

  2. I suppose 2 people can play faux news just as easily as 1 can. What I find remarkable is that both of these stories dominated the news and now you hear nothing.

    Do I think scientist could manipulate data? Absolutely. Scientists often have big egos. Do I think because 1 jerk might have manipulated data there is no such concept as climate change? Nooooo.

    The question people have to ask themselves is, are they willing to take the risk that it is all bunk? I am not. Not because of some Brit and his major ego but because common sense tells me that man cannot continue to dump crap into the atmosphere without it having some impact of major magnitude.

    As for the pimp story, that’s another one that dried up. I am not fan of ACORN but that story was so lame from the git go. Congress should not have been rubber stamping in the first place and it should not have believed that story in the second place. Knee jerk reaction.

  3. Second-Alamo

    That’s the beauty of science over politics, they don’t deal in knee-jerk reactions. They carefully gather data and try to formulate an intelligent result based on that data accompanied by a figure of uncertainty. It may not be perfect, and yet people still put their faith in politicians who, as if they are all knowing, make the determination as to whether to believe scientists or not. It’s like having a used car salesman analyze your critical health concerns, or Dr. Murray for that matter!

  4. AreaWoman

    @Second-Alamo
    Who needs the scientific method when you’ve got “common sense” and Rachel Maddow/MSNBC ?

    There’s “crap” in the air! Let’s throw our money at it!

  5. Poor Richard

    Recommend Robert Samuelson’s “The self-esteem trap” in today’s
    WaPo op/ed. ” … Shrillness and venom are the coin of the realm.
    The opposition cannot simply be mistaken. It must be evil, selfish,
    racist, unpatriotic, or just plain stupid.”

  6. AreaWoman

    @Poor Richard Samuelson’s column is excellent. Obama has been the single most divisive and morally polarizing president in history, particularly in regard to the “right” to health insurance (paid by someone else, of course) vs. the “obstruction” of the Republicans who would “deny” healthcare to the American people. What a tragedy that so many are so easily manipulated by the simplistic platitudes spouted on both sides of the aisle.

  7. SA, I don’t disagree with you about science over politics at all. In fact, I would probably vote for science over most things.

    I have a fair amount of distain over Grand Canyon being caused by the Great Flood also.

    I find it strange that these stories dried up. Congress did knee jerk rather than keeping tabs on something they should have been watching in the first place rather than pouring money into an organization for 30-40 years.

  8. Area woman, never under-estimate common sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough of it to go around. Attempting to get into a pissing contest with me is living proof of that.

    Furthermore, if you want to have serious discussion, please stick to issues and stop sniping. I simply am not going to make time in my day for sniping any longer. It has gotten tiresome and non-productive.

  9. PWC Taxpayer

    I like Rachel Madcow. Shes like the Jon Stewart of MSNBC without the intellect. She’s a barameter of whats wrong in this country with her snide, hateful, schmirking, NY limosine liberal orthodoxy. If I ever find myself agreeing with her, I immediately go take a shower and reconsider my views. Using common sense in a conversation related in any way to Rachel is a nonsequitor. She’s much more like the scientist from East Anglia that got caught with his pants down. Maybe thats the point, with her “reporting” she probably can sympathize with him.

  10. marinm

    PWC.. You, complete me. #9 had me chuckling at work.

  11. PWCTP, if you are waiting for me to put up serious commentary from Rush Limbaugh, it isn’t going to happen. Too much spittle. If you want more Jon Stewart, you have come to the right place. He will be featured at least once a week unless he is on vacation. Why? Elena and I both think he is hilarious and no one is sacred.

    PWCTP, did you ever stop to think why Maddow appears snide, hateful and smirking? Is there anything out there that might just bring that out in a person? Steve Doocy pops into my mind. And he is probably not even close to being the worst about snide and smirking.

  12. Wolverine

    There are a couple of other things about the Science and Technology Committee report, which is actually available on the web. A goodly part of it was devoted to FOIA and current scientific methods of reporting in the UK; and the conclusion seems to have been that the UEA CRU, while within common current practice in the British scientific community, had better change the way it does business in that regard. Criticisms of the CRU on this and other technical matters was enough to get the Washington Post to label the report as “mixed.”

    Another part of the report was devoted to a dispute over the meaning of the word “trick.” It was a “he said, she said” type of disagreement which reminded me of that old deal about what the meaning of “is” is.

    Chairman Willis was asked by a reporter why the committee report was so lacking in scientific depth. He replied with rather stark honesty that the committee felt it had to get something out before the national elections, which could come as early as a month or two from now. To quote Willis: “Clearly we would have liked to spend more time on this.” He added, jokingly it was reported, that they had decided to get their report out before they were all “sent packing” in those national elections.

    Two reportedly in-depth investigations have been launched just recently at the request of the Labour majority. One of these investigations is being led by the University of East Anglia itself, which is not unlike a fox in the hen house deal. Sort of like Charlie Rangel investigating his own alleged tax violations. The other I am not sure about yet.

    Anyway, when I look at the report and the post-report comments, I see personally a typical political whitewash by two parties which have been huge advocates of spending gazillions of taxpayer funds on fighting global warming. The conclusions of that committee report were a given, especially in the context of a coming tight political battle in which the Labour Party might well lose. At least they had enough honesty to include the testimony of a Conservative who has been in the forefront of the anti-global warming fight, Nigel Lawson, Baron Lawson of Blaby, who described the CRU’s treatment of the data as “reprehensible” because, in his view, Professor Jones (head of the CRU) had deliberately hid data that demonstrated a decline in temperatures. Lawson also pointed specifically to the use of tree rings as a measuring device and the revelation that the CRU had used the rings from just a single pine tree in all its conclusions. Lawson’s comments, of course, were discarded by this loaded committee in a system where party discipline is very, very strong, especially around election time.

    I seems to me that Maddow forgot the lesson learned by Dan Rather: the web and the blogs are out there; and many people know how to use them. I guess she thought just using the words “British Parliament” would cause everybody to stand up and salute that illustrious historical symbol of democracy. Well, if the British Parliament speaks, it must be absolute and incontrovertible truth. Hey, guys, Parliament is just like Congress. Politicians live there.

  13. PWC Taxpayer

    “PWCTP, did you ever stop to think why Maddow appears snide, hateful and smirking?

    Cause she only feels loved by her own kind?

  14. And what kind would that be?

  15. Wolverine, Parliament is even more ill-behaved than our Congress. Having said that, I am not even sure why climate change is political. I can understand why what to do about it, or how to combat it is political and that is because it is going to cost money to fix it.

    Help me understand what the conservative is saying. Are you saying that there is no such thing as climate change? Are you saying that burning fossils fuels has no impact on the earth or the atmosphere?

  16. Wolverine

    Moon, you’re asking me to research and write a minor thesis here at a time when I am going to have to work on taxes or I may be among the first to deal with one of those 16,000 new IRS agents. Just in a brief capsule for the moment. The Conservative Party several years ago, about 2006, started to revise its official line on global warming. They recognized a need to control carbon emissions but in a more reasonable and far less expensive way than Labour and the Liberal Democrats would do it. Britain is in serious fiscal trouble, and the Tories, in my opinion, seem to think that a return of fiscal health is much more urgent than a vast spending program on global warming. As far as I can tell, the Tories are focusing on energy policy and are no longer so sure about the liberalized free market approach established under Thatcher. Importation of liquified natural gas to replace dependence even on North Sea oil is starting to take a big bundle out of the national wallet. Moreover, the Tories seem to feel that the national global warming tax on energy users is unfair and ought to be shifted to the polluters instead. That, apparently, is how they believe the country should combat global warming. They also advocate for a program of renewable energy plus coal-fired plants only with clean carbon capture technology and nuclear energy. The Conservative Conference in Mancester last year came out against excessive “interventionism” but did admit that the government has to devise new strategies to curtail carbon emissions. So, yes, my impression is that the party does admit that an effort is needed against global warming. There seems to be a difference, however, with regard to strategy, the focus of taxes, and the expenditure of large amounts of funds in a very tight and big problem fiscal situation. It is a bit confusing, I must admit; but that is the best I can do with a brief look right now.

    One thing though. According to some pundits, “climategate” did have a big effect on opinion within the Conservative Party. Apparently many in the electorate and within the party structure began to have strong second thoughts about the scope and validity of the global warming claims. I would guess that Baron Lawson is in that category. Given the contrast between that and the official party line that an effort does have to be made to cut carbon emissions, I’m not sure right now exactly where the party will wind up on this. Anyway, these are just my impressions from a quick read.

  17. Wolverine

    Moon, after a second look at your question, I’m not sure now if you were asking about the Brit. Conservative Party or about me as a “conservative.” Part II: I am a strong skeptic on global warming. I do not like the way the CRU went about conducting its business, especially the failure to allow adequate contrary voices and full and public peer review. I also do not like the apparent readiness of the UN to accept every doggoned unproven theory that comes down the pike, including the ones about polar bear populations and the projected melting of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. I see enough contrary views out there to refrain from accepting the claims of the global warming advocates without full and transparent and confirmed scientific evidence. I do not like to get the bum’s rush into anything, especially if my hesitation to automatically accept the claims of advocates gets me labelled in the way that the likes of the Rachel Maddows of this world tend to label. Rachel Maddow does not know the truth of the matter any more than I do. We are both laypersons on this.

    Having opined the above, I will also state that I like fresh, clean air and water, just as I am a staunch advocate of the preservation of open spaces. As a matter of fact, I do cotton to some of the suggestions in the Brit. Conservative Party progam for energy strategy and carbon caps with adjustments for particular American situations, such as liquified natural gas a la T. Boone Pickens which is a lot cheaper here than elsewhere. What I do not like is the tendency among full-blown global warming advocates here to want to shove their views and their programs down my throat in every personal way possible, even though the true existence of global warming is still very much a contentious subject. Some of this stuff reminds me of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland: “First the sentence and then the trial!!”

  18. Thank you. Working on taxes myself. Ugh. Trying to figure out the difference in dividends and qualified dividends. I don’t think I want the answer. Mr. Vince gets it all anyway.

    So conservatives such as yourself are not denying the existence of global warming and some pretty unacceptable consequences if left unchecked? That’s good to know. I don’t think we ought to accept any one person’s analysis on something like this. Scientists all over the world are studying climate change, what is causing it etc. I would hope we woiuuld take a look at collective information from studies independent of each other.

    I have heard way too many people simply state that it doesn’t exist. That I cannot accept. I would say whatever is done should be incremental.

    What is sad is that renewable energies were in hot pursuit back in the 70’s and early 80’s. Somehow it wasn’t cool to work on these things and the programs that had govt support lost funding. Also too many people involved in the renewable energies were violently against nuclear. Several of the great plans also were seriously flawed. There was also a rift between researchers and those marketing programs.

    I guess I don’t think these things should be political. I suppose none of this is new. Mr. Howler worked in energy, both carbon based and renewables back in the day. Same arguments, different decades. Thanks again for answering my questions.

  19. Off with their heads. And actually I was asking about you personally.

    Back in my old line of work, my friend Jack used to always ask, ‘why does food for thought have to become a full course meal?’

    Funny how nuclear has become the fair haired child in some camps but I sure don’t see any new nuclear plants going in. I suppose that is the NIMBY effect coming in to play.

    Not to sound like a weirdo but I am as conserved over places like Yellowstone blowing or a meteor strike. But I do think we need to continue to limit emissions incrementally and to keep other pollutants out of the air where possible. but I think everyone agrees with that.

  20. Wolverine

    Moon, on global warming I do not yet accept and I do not yet reject. I want to see the evidence in a forum in which there is a far greater transparency and unity of thought than I see now. And I truly want to see some of the new-fangled money-making out of this to a max extent. It is unfortunate that criminal activity with regard to the carbon credit trading business in Europe has already become a concern for INTERPOL.

    But, you are right on a critical issue in my opinion. There are a lot of reasons for doing some incrementals for common sense goals: energy independence; clean air and water; improved carbon trapping methods so that we do not send our coal miners into abject poverty; and the like. It’s funny; but, whenever I look at all these conflicting scientific claims, my mind always wanders back to Greenland. If I could trace my Norse ancestry back far enough, I would probably discover some blood link to those Vikings of the early Middle Ages who were happily raising cattle in the grassy pastures of Greenland. Then the grass died out and the place started to freeze over and they all left. I’ve never heard Al Gore explain that one.

  21. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Certainly man has to have impact on the earth. We are altering its natural state. I am not ready to start with the falling sky talk either. I get equally irritated with people who snicker during a snow storm about global warming as I do someone who flicks me off for driving a mid-size suv.

    Speaking of coal miners…another mining disaster.

    I read some article about kids growing up in those mining towns just get out of dodge now because there is nothing in mining they can count on. It seems to be a horrible way to make a living. Those people who used to leave the mines for whatever reason used to head towards Detroit and other parts of the rust belt. I guess that escape is out now.

    Oil now up in the 80’s per barrel. I can remember saying the American people will never tolerate it going above $40 a barrel. Guess I was wrong.

  22. Bear

    PWC Taxpayer :
    I like Rachel Madcow. Shes like the Jon Stewart of MSNBC without the intellect. She’s a barameter of whats wrong in this country with her snide, hateful, schmirking, NY limosine liberal orthodoxy. If I ever find myself agreeing with her, I immediately go take a shower and reconsider my views. Using common sense in a conversation related in any way to Rachel is a nonsequitor. She’s much more like the scientist from East Anglia that got caught with his pants down. Maybe thats the point, with her “reporting” she probably can sympathize with him.As far as intellect I believe she was a Rhodes Scholar and a PHD candidate

  23. Bear

    As far as intellect I believe she was a Rhodes Scholar and a PHD candidate

Comments are closed.