the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Media

Posted by Jeff Id on February 20, 2010

Often, news articles miss the point or become political rather than informative.  This one is unique.  It’s got an odd mix of misunderstanding of the facts combined with compliments to McIntyre.  Again, climatology is an odd world and some of this requires translation for the public (which doesn’t spend hours a day looking at it) to follow.

CA has the article under Hometown Coverage.

The full article by Jeet Heer  is here.

It starts with this paragraph.

Much remains murky about the scandal dubbed Climategate, which involves the release last fall of e-mails leaked or stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Initial accounts focused on e-mails that seemed to show scientists deliberately distorting research to make the danger of global warming appear worse than it is. Others have suggested this could be a misreading of the e-mails, most of which, though not all, simply suggest working professionals wrangling over contentious issues and occasionally slagging their critics.

Now I understand that a reporter will attempt to maintain balance, but how come reasonable and neutral people keep repeating the bullcrap lines of these scientists.  Others have suggested a misreading— come on. Read them yourself if you’re going to write an article. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out who’s being honest and who’s got the financial incentives not to.  Gee, is it the unpaid bloggers or the multi-billion dollar climate industry??  Work the math.  Anyway, it drives me nuts that people with keyboards are still pushing the obviously charade arguments.

Michael Mann said this:

“I think the climate-change-denial movement has recognized that transition was taking place and has really invested a lot of effort and resources in creating this huge infrastructure of online disinformation. And I think it is a challenge for legitimate news organizations to compete with that massive disinformation network.”

He’s taking too much airspace at my blog but the jerk is the central source of disinformation.  If the ‘denial’ movement is out there and organized, please contact me at the email on the left cause I WANT SOME MONEY TOO!!  It’s not a lie though because the dolt has convinced me that he actually believes his own bs.

As one of the signature issues of his blog, Mr. Watts has focused on meteorological stations, arguing that they were often misplaced – positioned in areas where temperatures were artificially high, such as asphalt parking lots. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration responded to this critique by calculating temperatures minus Mr. Watts’s list of objectionable stations. Ironically, the new data showed a slight rise in temperatures.

I don’t know why a slight temperature rise is ‘ironic’ but this is the kind of comment that gives the drive by’s a bad name.  No thought or understanding whatsoever. But then Michael Mann comes back with this crap:

“What McIntyre has essentially done is put his finger on small technicalities that don’t matter,” argues Prof. Mann, now based at Pennsylvania State University. “In every case, they’ve been dismissed. When the question arises, does it make a difference? The answer is always no. All that is important to him is to be able to say that he’s found a problem and then allow everybody else to say this fundamentally undermines the science.”

Why isn’t it important that the HS uses bad math?  Why isn’t it important that data is used upside down?  Why isn’t the media mentally capable of calling out these people when they are sold lines of bull.

The key objection to the work of bloggers such as Mr. McIntyre is that they are engaged in an epic game of nitpicking: zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines. To read their online work is to enter a dank, claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science. Lost in the blogging world is any sense of proportion, or the idea that science is built on cumulative work in many fields, the scientists say.

And that is the comment that spurred the post.  While beautiful in drama, it has a combination of ignorance and sophistry which can only be compared to the smell of old meat on a hot summer day.  Nobody expects the entire edifice of climate science to fall just because much of it is comprised of scat.  Dried old scat is strong enough to make houses of.   Just what is this guy trying to paint skeptics as when he writes this? However, we do expect that reasoned people will re-evaluate the extremist claims of climate science, as well as the absolute witchcraft of the paleoclimate branch.

I’m published in other fields, I’ve got several patents, we’ve made products which lead the world in several categories, just what the hell makes us so much less than these paid global warming advocates?  What does Michael Mann do that leads the wold in anything?  — not one damn thing!

So let me reply to this last little sentence — “Lost in the blogging world is any sense of proportion, or the idea that science is built on cumulative work in many fields, the scientists say.”

Lost in the media world is any sense of understanding, or any ability to critically or objectively reason about an argument which goes against their political cause.   Lost is the understanding which would make a good reporter figure out that you simply cannot throw away over half your data to make a conclusion.  And finally, lost is the human race which is too damned stupid and lazy to see the scam right in front of their faces.

Finally, I need to address Shmidt who said this:

“He could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He’s a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

Think of the hubris of this statement.  McIntyre could be a superstar because he’s so smart. A giant!!  Yet, he contributes to a reduction of human knowledge.   Where does this place Gavin in relationship to McIntyre on the scale of supergenius.

I’ve seen gavin’s work on frequency analysis of solar data.  He, a PhD mathematician screwed the analysis so badly that I an Aeronautical engineer could have corrected it for him in moments.  I’m not bragging, I’m pointing out that this self appointed genius has screwed up math in publication that even I can figure out.

I know already that it’s sophistry.  I already know that Climate Audit is correct on the math issues, because I understand it.  I know the Antarctic ain’t melting, Mann 08 and 09 are lies and a dozen other proxies and papers are rubbish.  All because of McIntyre. Not because Steve said so, because I understand it.

What an idiot!  –  Hermione  Granger – Sorcerers Stone

[/rant]


20 Responses to “The Media”

  1. Carl Gullans said

    Thanks Jeff, I had just come here after reading that article and wanted to explode. Reading someone else’s rant has stopped me from needing my own.

    (on this note, can you rant about the new plan for healthcare bill reconciliation sometime?)

  2. Jeff Id said

    I’m trying to hold it back but it’s right at the surface.

  3. stan said

    The best medicine is to laugh at the incompetents. What kind of dumbass scientist never bothers to check his instruments? That’s all anyone needs to know. That one simple fact — they never checked their instruments — is game, set, match. These guys are a joke. Of course, the list of dumbass moves goes on and on and on. But the focus should stay on the fact that they are a scientific JOKE.

    Gavin and Mikey, do you allow other scientists to have access to your work so it can be checked in accordance with basic scientific methodology? No? Oops. Not science. Game, set, Match. It’s over.

    Laugh at ’em Jeff. It’s all they are good for.

  4. JohnWho said

    “Read them yourself if you’re going to write an article.”

    I would note that journalists are paid to write, not to read.

    Jeet Heer is an excellent example of this journalistic methodology.

  5. papertiger said

    Steady yourself Jeff.

    We got them on the run. You’re showing Mann and Schmidt making fools of themselves. Down in San Diego we have Sommerville and “several unnamed speakers”(no doubt fearing the words would haunt them) all peddling the same tripe at an AAAS meeting. Here have a look.

    We got em.

    Want something constructive to do politically? Hang a Suspend California AB 32 banner.
    It’ll make you feel better.

  6. JAE said

    THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET AND THE BLOGS (and JeffID)! We would all now be completely smothered by CO2 bullshit regulations, if we had to depend only upon the dishonest media and our corrupt governmental representatives. The leftist/socialistic con-games still may prevail, but at least there is a fight that has awakenened the “silent majority.” God bless the likes of McIntyre, Watts, JeffID and all their commenters (including me🙂 ) for their help!

  7. ianl8888 said

    Calm down, Jeff, rants like this just make an irresistible target for the MSM

    Heer’s article is not “high irony” as I’ve seen it described; rather it’s just a common, garden-variety example of yellow gutter press. There’s many such turning up around the globe

    The reason is simple: the MSM knows the Internet has made the running on this issue and they are afraid, because they see their traditional stranglehold on the information flow being shattered and discredited

    Journalists do not do their job for its’ high pay because that mostly doesn’t exist. They do it for the power (controlling the information flow, controlling the public agenda). So:

    Loss of credibility = loss of power; vanity is much affronted

    A current example ? The Guardian (UK, hard left and at the forefront of AGW alarmism rhetoric for years) has in the last few weeks started to claim that it’s own fearless, investigative reporting uncovered the corruption in the Climategate emails … as Daffy Duck said: “It is to laugh !!”

    I agree with earlier posts – laughing out loud at these smear articles is the most effective reply. Vanity is further affronted (being laughed at and ridiculed is very, very painful for these fools) and this spurs ever more silly articles in desperation. It means skeptical science is winning

  8. Hal said

    Hey Jeff, I love your concatonation of Rocket scientist and brain surgeon.

    Rocket surgeon.

    Your vent is right on the money.

    The team is on the run. Keep up the pressure.

    Hal

  9. Peter of Sydney said

    It’s clear that much of the media is behind the AGW hoax and nothing will change. The only way to short circuit the hoax is to punish those responsible at high levels, such as Al Gore and the IPCC chairman. It’s high time they were handed fraud charges to bring them to account in a court of law and try to find them guilty as charged, and if so then put them behind bars. Nothing else will alter the course of this grand fraud. After all, there’s been sufficient revelations of fraud already presented yet the AGW fraud is still well and truly alive.

  10. Ed said

    McIntyre and McKitrick questioned the methods and data used by Mann et al. In contradiction of all normal scientific practice, they had great difficulty in extracting the base data and algorithms from Mann and when they finally received the information, because the publication standards of the UK Royal Society insisted upon it, they were unable to verify the results of Mann et al. They even found that any data set (even the phone book) read into the Mann computer model would inevitably result in the “hockey stick” graph.

    Never forget, the scientific basis of the Hockey Stick was comprehensively debunked in 2005 in the report by a US Congressional committee headed by Prof E Wegman, (a world renowned statistician), In addition to his assessment of the very questionable statistical methods, it shows at length that any peer review of the work was only amongst a closed group of “Believers”.

    One would have hoped that this would have put an end to the story: that was not so, the deception has continued ever since.

  11. Phillip Bratby said

    If there were a Winter Olympics event for synchronised lying, then Mann and Schmidt would have taken the gold medal with maximum points.

  12. Matt Y. said

    “He could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He’s a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

    Uhhh… how can somebody who is right reduce the sum total of human knowledge?

    Mann’s new straw man: the whole of climate science hasn’t been discredited, so the fact my hockey stick is BS doesn’t matter. Shameless.

  13. stepanovich said

    Jeff Id:

    Gee, is it the unpaid bloggers or the multi-billion dollar climate industry??

    Um, there’s no “climate industry”. When climate scientists say that we know enough about the climate to start taking action, that’ll actually damage their chances of getting more funding — there’ll be less of a need to do further research if we already know enough! Or are you saying that every scientist in the world, from Mann to Weaver to Hansen to Rahmstorf, is linked to the renewable energy industry?

    However, there clearly is a global warming denial industry. I forgot how much money Marc Morano makes each month merely collecting links for his Climate Depot project, but I remember it’s more than what he earned working as a staff under Senator Inhofe. Oh, and the Heartland Institute could get enough money to host their “International Conference on Climate Change”, merely by cutting and pasting articles written by themselves and other people on their web site. I wonder where that money could’ve come from?

    Maybe you are unpaid, but it doesn’t mean that other people are also unpaid.

  14. Peter B said

    “Although the hockey stick has been battered and bruised by many critics, it still works.”

    I stopped reading right there.

  15. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I think that the tact that a Mann or Schmidt take in these discussions is sometimes difficult to understand because, at least in part, it avoids the real issue and that is the amount of uncertainty involved in the results that some climate scientists claim in giving evidence for the effects of AGW. They both appear to argue a lot on the margins of the issues without addressing uncertainty head on.

    I think, if ever actually pinned down on providing objective confidence intervals, they would fall back on something like, well this is the best information we have and, if you have something better, publish it in the peer review literature. In other words, the game to be played is to get an AGW conclusion into the peer-reviewed and ignore or over simplify the issues of uncertainty.

    This tendency is evidenced by viewing the seeming travesty that the IPCC has made of their attempt to make the probabilities that they publish for their predictions and conclusions seem objective by using a general term and then attempting to attach a quantitative probability to it.
    There were emails that talked about avoiding the issue of probability in the IPCC publications. I think the politically non involved and disinterested scientist would have no problem talking about uncertainties. It is only when the scientists is publishing with an impact on policy in mind does he tend to shy away from this issue.

    Further notice the sloppy work that apparently results in scientists misplacing important documents. My view is that they are hurried to provide impact papers for policy support and then move on to the next impact paper or impact topic without a desire to fully discuss what they have or have not added to the science.

  16. Jeff Id said

    #13, Um, there’s no “climate industry”.

    I found your comment in the spam bucket. Don’t take this wrong but — The hell there isn’t.

    I think your comment is horribly uninformed. The money in advocate climate science is a thousand times greater than anything funding people with moderate or skeptical views. Currently, my estimate is over 100 billion per year directed by different governments for advocacy research, mitigation and new policy.

    You have to not want to see it to claim it doesn’t exist.

  17. RomanM said

    #13
    (Bold mine)

    When climate scientists say that we know enough about the climate to start taking action, that’ll actually damage their chances of getting more funding — there’ll be less of a need to do further research if we already know enough!

    How naive can you get? There will be an even greater need for research to determine how the catastrophe can be avoided … and who else better to do this research than the folks who alerted us to it in the first place?

  18. Ruhroh said

    Hey Jeff,
    Interesting debate just now between Bill Nye and Bustardi (sp?) on Bill Oreilly, FNC .

    Not sure where to snag it, but maybe postworthy.
    Nye went for the simple message.
    I cannot pretend to be an unbiased reporter; thus no commentary from me, behond ‘Interesting’…

    RR

  19. Ruhroh said

    OK, Jeff, here you go;

    http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/29170397/bill-nye-in-no-spin-zone.htm#q=Bill+Nye

    also, Warwick Hughes seems to have gotten someone to find and scan the multi-hundred page papers (phone books) in which Phil Jones did some work to decide about UHI. I don’t know if this is the runup to the 1990 paper or not. These seem to be from the late 80’s, some kind of encyclopedic reference.
    I can’t tell the relationship to the purportedly ‘lost’ data at CRU.

    WH seems to be saying this was when they did comparison studies to ‘rural’ stations which were actually rural cities?

    Anyway, you’ll know what to do…
    Cheers,
    RR

  20. brc said

    With regards to the ‘other have suggested’ – I once saw an old interview with Margaret Thatcher. I’m not one for the Iron Lady myself, but when a reporter started off a leading question with ‘people have said that…’ – she pulled him up and said ‘which people said that’? His answer was, ‘you know, erm, um, some people’. She told him to go away and do his research and come back with some proper questions. I thought it was classic. The same thing applies here : what ‘others’ suggested? Why not name them?

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

 
%d bloggers like this: