While Real Climate attempts to bullcrap this under the rug. Fox News has picked up the story as their headline post. They don’t know the issues like we do but still did a decent job. No mention of tAV – darn. It’s better not to be at ground zero though and several others linked here.
Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails
The Examiner has had it for a while, as has the Guardian and the Telegraph. Rush Limbaugh carried it and the Drudge Report ran a piece.
Are there any other MSM links around?
FOX, Telegraph, Wall St Journal, BBC, Nature, Register, NPR, Guardian, New Scientist, National Review
the Air Vent 
Roger Harrabin at BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm
Key quote:
“But speaking to my source at the CRU, it is also clear that the unit has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and unreasonable demands for data – and that there is personal animus against their intellectual rivals.”
Nature – pretty much the same as the original BBC:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
This data is going to be regarded as “tainted” unless someone steps up and starts performing FOIA requests on the recipients of Jones’ emails.
“Hi, I’d like to see anything you received from Phil Jones on YYYY/MM/DD” type requests.
The typical FOIA dodge is “This-or-that email doesn’t meet the criteria you outlined.” Well, at least here you’ve got the other end of the string.
It also seems to me as if he’s disseminating data that he’s since claimed was “lost.” Well, here’s some guys that might have it.
Also don’t know if this has been mentioned
Andrew Orlowski
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru_climate_hack/
Front page of Fox News. Are any of these considered “MSM” anyway? When the big three in the US, the AP, or Reuters carry it, then there will be an issue.
Mark
This is my clearest view of this issue:
Sorry I cant’t offer a US biggie but someone from the Guardian again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking
“The attacks on the hockey stick graph led the United States National Academy of Sciences to carry out an investigation, concluding in 2006 that although there had been no improper conduct by the researchers, they may have expressed higher levels of confidence in their main conclusions than was warranted by the evidence.”
“It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire.
• Bob Ward is Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science”
Bishop Hill has an excellent summary
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
From StuartR’s Harrabin article:
‘One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%.’
Cripes! There’s science journalism for you!
So, on the one hand we have Jones & Cru manning the troll booths with billy clubs at various peer-reviewed publications, and on the other said trolls are demanding the skeptics to publish their results in said peer-reviewed publications, the gates of which they so jealously guard.
WHAT AN EFFING CROCK.
Send the lot of them to the brig, I tell ye.
😉
1098472400
“Bottom line – their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.”
Feelings count, no?
Now that Fox, Instapundit, lucianne, freerepublic, malkin and breitbart have all joined in posting on this, the MSM is in a box. they can ignore it, but it will add an enormous amount of fuel to the “propaganda” fire burning around their ankles.
Harrabin’s post probably shows the outline of the coming PR response: “it’s embarrassing but not really damning”. For that reason, climate skeptics would be well advised not to focus on displays of rudeness or self-pity in the leaked documents – that is to play into the hands of the harrassment-by-FOI and “normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists” apologias. You should try to direct the limited attention of the media to the most tangible smoking guns, especially clear and undeniable cases of fraud and deception. You should provide the background information to help non-climate-mavens to (as much as possible) understand and see for themselves exactly why the chosen excerpts prove unjustifiable misbehaviour. And you’ll have to do it all fairly quickly, before CRU’s spin wins by default and before the attention of the media wanders again.
Who would doubt this, alas?
Anonym,
True, focus on the science, or lack thereof.
Who said IPCC AR reports executive outlines were intended to hide or deceive what the scientists were saying in the full length versions?
1103647149
04:14 AM 8/24/00 -0700
Dear K,
It was good to talk with you this morning. This is a reminder about
sending your Western North America banded record as you
suggested. I suspect that you are right to think that it would eventually
be best to use a customized banded set, but as a start, I think it would
be good to compare the WNW record with the mean series Graybill
and Idso used in their 1993 paper, and with the single site Campito
Mountain record. I’ll start with a simple graphical comparison and
then move to comparing waveforms extracted by, for example, SSA.
My hope is that we can fairly rapidly generate a note to something like
GRL or JoC’s new short format, putting a believable version of these
records out there for general use.
Please reply to the xxx@xxxx.edu address. I’m sending it
from my other address as well as a ‘belt-and-braces’ approach
because of recent e-mail problems. Looking forward to working on
this with you, Cheers, M
1107454306
Small home page article on the NY Times site. The article is here:
I forget about this one in The Herald Sun from Australia:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
The Guardian article specifically mentions The Air Vent!
Congrats!
It’s finally nice to see actual proof of what many of us knew was happening, but couldn’t prove. Great stuff.
Was just at RC, the spin is unbelievable. Total BS (and bad science too).
Here’s another one:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_to.html
Revkin weighs in.
I bet the’re gonna be more careful what they write in emails.
I hope that journal editors take a look at these messages, and then stop kissing up to the team! Maybe a series of rejected papers would get the team’s attention.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513195
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails
Friday, November 20, 2009
so they have FOIA in the UK?
yeah. Freedom of Information Act 2000
They also have protection for whistle blowers, though this looks to be a hack.
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
As usual, a very interesting blog. Amazing what happens when you go deer hunting, eh? Hot Air has a post with over 500 comments. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/
Congratulations Jeff. You made the NYT. (Revkin’s article)
It is important to remember that most of the public are not familiar with all the details of what is going on here. As and when this breaks into MSM news the importance, it seems to me, is the light this casts on many of the players in the IPCC consensus. Like it or not, to most of the public the view that these are open, honest, unbiased, balanced, accurate assessors of the state of climate science is the prevalent one. These revelations challenge that view (to my mind render it untenable). So it is not so much about the detals of the science, but the credibility and objectivity of the scientists.
As an example, I gather one of Gavin’s responses on RC is that “the Team” were challenging (and seeking to eliminate from IPCC summaries) opposing work because it was poor not because it disagreed with their view. But he’s missed the real impact of these revelations – they show that he and his colleagues are too deeply entrenched to be able to recognise the difference. To be blunt, his opinion on the matter is worthless. (Of course that doesn’t tell you anything about whether a given “opposition” paper is good or bad, just that Gavin is too deeply involved to be able to tell you reliably)
Here’s Science‘s coverage.
The Daily Mail is carrying the story, too. 90% or more of the comments are definitely from what could be termed the ‘denier’ camp!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229740/Hackers-expose-global-warming-Claims-leaked-emails-reveal-research-centre-massaged-temperature-data.html
most of the MSM is allowing Mann, Jones, et. al. to respond with distortions and lies rather than asking the source what ACTUALLY happened. The Guardian was particularly shameful; they attempt to just sweep this all under the rug with one article.