the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

MSM Catchin’ on.

Posted by Jeff Id on November 20, 2009

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

33 Responses to “MSM Catchin’ on.”

  1. StuartR said

    Roger Harrabin at BBC

    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:

  2. Al said

    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.

  3. StuartR said

    Also don’t know if this has been mentioned

    Andrew Orlowski

  4. Mark T said

    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.


  5. NikFromNYC said

    This is my clearest view of this issue:

  6. StuartR said

    Sorry I cant’t offer a US biggie but someone from the Guardian again.

    “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”

  7. NormD said

    Bishop Hill has an excellent summary

  8. Vinny Burgoo said

    From StuartR’s Harrabin article:

    ‘One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%.’

    Cripes! There’s science journalism for you!

  9. Harold Vance said

    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.


    Send the lot of them to the brig, I tell ye.


  10. Jason said


    “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?

  11. stan said

    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.

  12. anonym said

    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.

    The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU.

    Who would doubt this, alas?

  13. Jason said


    True, focus on the science, or lack thereof.

    Having said that, we may produce 1981-2000 normals in the next year for SST if we can solve adequately remaining problems (for climate change monitoring) with satellite SSTs. A key goal is monitoring changes in the Southern Ocean.
    Solutions are likely to include use of some corrected (to bulk SST data) ATSR data. This depends on work elsewhere in the Met Office. However, some less well corrected AVHRR data is needed as well to extend normals adequately back to 1981 in much of the Southern Ocean.This may give a new perspectives on the southern ocean SST changes; are likely to be significantly different in the southern half of the southern ocean from the global average. This is suggested by the lack of reduction of Antarctic sea ice, in contrast to the Arctic, which still persists. Such work may or may not get into IPCC FAR but if it did, it could be a special case. But it would need careful handling for conversion to advice to policy makers.

    Who said IPCC AR reports executive outlines were intended to hide or deceive what the scientists were saying in the full length versions?


  14. Don said

    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 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

  15. Jason said


  16. David K said

    Small home page article on the NY Times site. The article is here:

  17. David K said

    I forget about this one in The Herald Sun from Australia:

  18. The Diatribe Guy said

    The Guardian article specifically mentions The Air Vent!


    It’s finally nice to see actual proof of what many of us knew was happening, but couldn’t prove. Great stuff.

  19. Squidly said

    Was just at RC, the spin is unbelievable. Total BS (and bad science too).

  20. Bonnie said

    Here’s another one:

  21. L Gardy LaRoche said

    Revkin weighs in.

  22. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    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.

  23. Bonnie said

  24. Bonnie said,2933,576009,00.html

    Climate Skeptics See ‘Smoking Gun’ in Researchers’ Leaked E-Mails

    Friday, November 20, 2009

  25. caroljm36 said

    so they have FOIA in the UK?

  26. James Keenan said

    yeah. Freedom of Information Act 2000

    The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is the implementation of freedom of information legislation in the United Kingdom on a national level. It is an Act of Parliament that introduces a public “right to know” in relation to public bodies. The Act implements a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party in the 1997 general election. The final version of the Act is believed to have been diluted from that proposed while Labour was in opposition. The full provisions of the act came into force on 1 January 2005.

  27. James Keenan said

    They also have protection for whistle blowers, though this looks to be a hack.

    Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998

  28. G Howe said

    As usual, a very interesting blog. Amazing what happens when you go deer hunting, eh? Hot Air has a post with over 500 comments.

  29. BobKC said

    Congratulations Jeff. You made the NYT. (Revkin’s article)

  30. mrjthomas said

    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)

  31. anonym said

    Here’s Science‘s coverage.

  32. Stephen Brown said

    The Daily Mail is carrying the story, too. 90% or more of the comments are definitely from what could be termed the ‘denier’ camp!

  33. Carl Gullans said

    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.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: