This post is the second of a two part series. Read the first installment, Unreported Emissions From Natural Gas Blow Up BC's Climate Action Plan.
Methane leaks from British Columbia's natural gas industry are likely at least 7 times greater than official numbers increasing the entire provinces' carbon footprint by nearly 25%. That's like putting 3 million more vehicles on BC's roads.
As...
read more























Comments
I'm shocked
"Climategate" was treated by the media as a huge story, warranting full-page opinion pieces and tons of front-page coverage. But all I've been able to find about this is a news "brief" in the B section of the Vancouver Sun and a few other mentions elsewhere. Although, most bizarre of all was the one source that did give it front-page coverage. The UK's Daily Mail picked one tiny and minor bit of criticism from the investigation and headlined its story: "Climategate university condemned for 'unacceptable culture of secrecy'". I wasn't expecting apologies from the media or the deniers, but I did (naively perhaps) expect at least a bit of journalism.
poo sticks
He may have been exonerated but the damage has already been done as the phrase goes s..t sticks and most people will never have seen this news (of the exoneration) and will only remember the tabloid headlines- i love the fair and non-judgemental british media!
Oral and written evidence
Readers may be interested in this:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387ii.pdf
Thanks to The Rabett for pointing to that one.
Deep Climate on CRU exoneration
Climategate investigations, round 1: CRU exonerated
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cru-exonerated/
The findings are crystal clear on the most crucial points: The committee found absolutely no evidence to support accusations of scientific dishonesty, even going so far as to state that there “was no case to answer”. And it also rejected accusations that Phil Jones and other CRU scientists had attempted to pervert the peer review system.
Contrarians took comfort in maverick Labour MP Graham Stringer’s objections to some of the findings. But even here, there is little for the contrarians to cheer about, as Stringer appeared at pains to avoid any appearance of endorsing the plausibility of any of the specific accusations of dishonesty. That’s just as well, because it turns out that Stringer appears to be relying for his understanding of the issues, not on the submitted evidence, but rather – wait for it – the “quickie” book on Climategate written by Thomas Fuller and Steven Mosher.
Phil Jones and CRU exonerated
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cru-exonerated/
The findings are crystal clear on the most crucial points: The committee found absolutely no evidence to support accusations of scientific dishonesty, even going so far as to state that there “was no case to answer”. And it also rejected accusations that Phil Jones and other CRU scientists had attempted to pervert the peer review system.
Contrarians took comfort in maverick Labour MP Graham Stringer’s objections to some of the findings. But even here, there is little for the contrarians to cheer about, as Stringer appeared at pains to avoid any appearance of endorsing the plausibility of any of the specific accusations of dishonesty. That’s just as well, because it turns out that Stringer appears to be relying for his understanding of the issues, not on the submitted evidence, but rather – wait for it – the “quickie” book on Climategate written by Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller.
House of Commons probe exonerates Jones
Britain's Daily Mail, who probably more than most beat this story up in the first place, carried basically the same story yesterday, but spun it somewhat to: Climategate university condemned for 'unacceptable culture of secrecy'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262403/Climategate-university-condemned-unacceptable-culture-secrecy.html
phil jones
Thanks for this essential information on the conclusion by the House of Commons.
Fox News still managed to spin it
Out of curiosity I visited Fox News to see how they were presenting this. Sure enough, they put the focus on the report being based on a "one-day probe," and after mentioning the basic new of the exoneration spent the bulk of the article stirring up doubts about its legitimacy.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/31/climate-gate-inquiry-largely-clears-scientists/
But what really got my goat was their prominent link from that article to an article from the day before, with the sensationally bad-sounding headline, "NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits." (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/) Reading THAT article you get the sense that NASA scientists have indeed "admitted" that their data are not as accurate as the Hadley Centre's. But if you bother to read the source emails for that claim (linked to from the article) you find out that NASA indeed said that: *because the are doing different work and don't NEED the kind data of as high a resolution as Hadley Centre needs*! In other words, it's a completely manufactured "scandal." No matter, the mental seeds were planted, damage done.
Lord Monckton Explains Why The Decision Was No Big Surprise
Is there anyone who didn't expect Phil Jones to be cleared? Lord Monckton, in a recent radio interview, explains why the decision was very predictable regardless of the evidence against Jones.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/markgillar/2010/04/03/lord-christopher-monckton-discusses-global-warming
denier irony
TruthisMighty: "When you take the comments from those emails and put them together with the context of the time they were written and what they were written about they mean what they say and they said what they meant."
Hey look - we agree on something.
TruthisMighty: ""you can go right back on with your wasting tax payers dollars and insulting good honest scientists"
I love denier irony.
"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural ( mcts )systems."
politically-charged
Related to that, and of course, reporters have varying levels of competence and scientific expertise as well as varying biases with respect to this very complex and politically-charged issue, even within individual media organizations. As such articles need to be read with those caveats in mind -- even the most reputable newspapers and lay-magazines aren't a gold standard, far from it, and articles need to be assessed individually for their reliability and balance.
And I don't know about you, "Justtellthetruth", but in my view characterizing Roger Pielke Jr. as a "hurricane expert" when Peike doesn't even hold a science degree while moreover also not mentioning the fact that Pielke is a prominent global warming "skeptic" does not constitute reliable and balanced reporting.
------
http://astore.amazon.com/healthyhairhi-20
The review by the House of
The review by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee began in January in the wake of the Climate gate media frenzy.
While the committee report recommends that climate scientists should seek to improve transparency in their work, release raw data when possible, and provide more detail on their methodologies ..
Estra
http://www.thetextileicon.com
http://www.thetextileicon.com/blog
World Wide specially USA