the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Warming Up

Posted by Jeff Id on December 4, 2011

You might think Climategate 2.0 is losing wind due to the light coverage by the media and the “out-of-context” dismissal by Real climate before anyone made any context.  In fact I believe the opposite is happening.  Several new articles are out today and more will be coming as the media begins to grasp that unlike stopping the use of fossil fuel, the story is financially viable. In the meantime, can someone tell the great communicators of climate science that you can’t state out-of-context before someone gives them context. Sometimes I really think that they would best serve their open advocacy by not writing anything at all.

This first article is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  It is very well written and a fun popular science style read of the story as we currently know it.

This second article is at the strata-sphere site and it features some of what I’ve written as well as a considerable amount of additional emails placed in context.

Just to give a flavor of what is being said by our unbiased media, here is a dismissal by Discover.  Read it at your own risk:

Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.

However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

:D

AAAS.org published this dismissal disguised as reporting:

There’s nothing really new in a second massive cache of e-mails

Planetsave doesn’t do terribly well either and took the time to lie about the committee coverage in blogs. Good for them.

In each of these reports the CRU was found free of any wrong-doing, if maybe a little silly from time to time.

Unsurprisingly, none of that has been made known by those currently enjoying their second 2 minutes in the spotlight.

What is amazing is that these three dismissive articles all came within 1 day of the email release.  I’ve read these as diligently as anyone and even by Dec 4, am only through a fraction of the mess.

I have to add that I’m really not enjoying reading these emails.   It stinks that we have to piece together mountains of rubbish so that the public can understand the meaning of what is going on.  I would rather be a climate blogger than a climategate blogger but with this new context, I am happy to do any work which exposes the foul play.

This is going to keep growing for a while.


14 Responses to “Warming Up”

  1. Good point. All dismissals so far are far from honest, by the simple fact they’ve been published too soon.

  2. Jeff, you need to take out the noconsensus part on your link to strata-sphere site. The link won’t work.

    Grzegorz Staniak, you need to go read this article. It was written by some one with a biology degree and is written at the level of high school science knowledge so you can understand what I and other professionals have been banging on about the biology of trees and reconstructions. And of course, it shows that Jeff is correct in his criticisms. As, I stated, from a professional point of veiw, the emails are worse in context than Jeff bangs on about.

  3. AGW_Skeptic said

    Here is thecorrect link to the strata-sphere article:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17684

  4. Jeff Id said

    Thanks John. Fixed.

  5. [...] The Air Vent says that Climategate 2.0 will continue to heat up, despite little media coverage [...]

  6. Kenneth Fritsch said

    The quick responses are predictable and mean little to those who continue to ask the question that these emails continue to throw light upon: How much is the practice of the science affected by the advocacy of the practicioners? You are probably not going to have a reasonable discussion with those people represented in these early responses because they will invariably select an over the top response from those doing the criticzing of the scientists and/or keep things very general in their replies. These people pretty much ignore a measured, detailed and reasonable response that might shed light on specific reactions to specific issues by some climate scientists.

  7. M. Simon said

    Politics in America stinks to high heaven. It is so bad I can’t concentrate enough to write about the outrage or three of the day anymore. So I’m focusing on my main love – electronics.

    Which reminds me – Jeff if your products need some promotion and they fit what I write about I’d like to do a bit at ECN about your stuff. Here is a link to my article list to give you the flavor:

    http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/

    We will leave all mention of politics and climate out and just talk tech. If you need my e-mail it is on the sidebar at:

    http://spacetimepro.blogspot.com/

    The same goes for anyone else reading this.

  8. Curious Canuck said

    Another great post Jeff. Thanks for all the time that you’re putting into this. You’re doing a great job of discerning the rot and making it clear to anyone reading your posts without the aide of rose coloured glasses.

    I can’t help but agree that this is only starting. The interpersonal and institutional impacts will take time to play themselves out and I join you in looking forward to seeing how it all happens. Hopefully in the end these factors will lead more scientists and academics to stand up to condemn what’s happening around them. The climate isn’t stopping on account of the agenda pushers but their misdeeds are doing a world of damage to finding out just what the climate does and is doing. Time for the scientists to stop crafting and defending ‘messages’ and hockey artwork and return to the science and facts.

    Their ‘messages’ are no more a part of the science than is their political leanings or artistic influences and seem to represent a bizarre attempt to justify their embrace of overt confirmation biases.

  9. Cosmic Ray said

    “What is amazing is that these three dismissive articles all came within 1 day of the email release. ”

    So, those 3 news sources have reporters that read ALL the emails in one day? I find that very hard to believe.
    By the way, I also read similar articles on some left wing news sources about a day or two after the emails came out. Seems like a coordinated plan of response similar to how ‘objective’ reporters using the ‘journolist’ discussion server were doing.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/steering_the_press_sj9bQWFBjX7YnDzxnP1z2J

  10. Just think how much fun it will be to rummage through 200,000 emails when the golden door if finally opened

  11. kim said

    Will that be in the sentencing phase?
    ==================

  12. [...] Warming Up [...]

  13. pouncer said

    If journalists had believed the climategate emailers had included Sarah Palin, they’d have enlisted hundreds of volunteers to scrutinized every word in detail…

  14. Dan Hughes said

    What’s Going on Behind the Curtain? Climategate 2.0 and Scientific Integrity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: