"Climategate" - giving deniers the power to say whatever they want

Thu, 2009-11-26 13:15Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

"Climategate" - giving deniers the power to say whatever they want

There’s nothing like a good “second-day” story to absolve the average journalist (very average in this case) from any responsibility to support his contentions with, say, a smattering of evidence.

Admittedly, second-day stories are tough in a paper like the Toronto Sun where space is at a premium. You want to update the reader with the news, but you still have to provide enough of the original story to provide context. Unless you’re Lorrie Goldstein, in which case you can short-cut your way to today’s opinion without making any effort to support it with actual factual references.

In his column today on the “Climategate” story of emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Goldstein offers this as a synopsis of what the purloined emails prove:

“Apparently they (the scientists involved) stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.”

Did they just? Well, you’ll have to take Goldstein’s word for it because he didn’t offer a single quote to back up his sweeping condemnation. He didn’t even mention whether he had read any of the emails himself; he was too busy getting hysterical about the horrifying collaboration of Big Government, Big Business and Big Green. Truly scary.

For people who are interested in the detail of what appeared in those emails and for a second opinion about what the authors might have meant in the writing, read the next post. For a mindless recitation of ideological cant, based on a cursory reading of yesterday’s news, you can always fall back on the Sun.

Comments

So? What are you implying? That the files did not originate from CRU? Get a life. CRU have already admitted the archived emails are real and were taken from their server.

You might want to consider that the files were probably created on the original email server which may not even reside in the UK (depending on the ISP). Be mindful that the files were lifted from an archive on a CRU server not from the actual email server itself.

“That the files did not originate from CRU?”

No. It means that the .zip file was _not_ packaged in Britain. Or, someone went out of his way to create the impression that the .zip file was not packaged in Britain.

– bi, http://frankbi.wordpress.com/

In case nobody has noticed, the science doesn’t matter. Everyone expects a net effect of warming from releasing smoke into the atmosphere. However, the net effect of clouds is to cool the atmosphere. But nobody cares, they’ll just say “oh this is a denialist talking point”. No, its a scientific fact is what it is. Furthermore, none of these bloggers who run desmog care about the enivronment at all because this treaty in copenhagen isn’t going to effect the temperature of the earth. Also, the temperature can do 1 of 2 things; heat or cool. The funny thing is, it’s worse if the planet cools. Another “denialist talking point” except that its a fact. Anyone who wants to challenge me on this must answer this question. The most difficult country to control is Russia. The only successful invasion of Russia was done by the Mongols. Could it be because Russia is so cold?

Copenhagen is really just a meet and greet ginned up and pretending to be important. Ironically it’s a carbon spewing fiesta full of thousands of delegates, private jets and every service imaginable. A single conference with the carbon footprint of a small nation, an orgy of consumption and excess and gladhanding photo ops - in a word politics. This is the crowning accomplishment of climate science.

Pages