You remember “Climategate”? That the “sceptics” like Bolt, Devine, Akerman declared exposed “the rotten heart of the propaganda machine that has driven the world to the brink of insanity” and that so undermined the campaign for action that Labor offered less than a token and the Libs dumped their leader?
Yeah, well, the final of the three investigations into it has now reported, and the answer is clear: there was no impropriety – it was a massive beatup.
And yet there’ve been no mea culpas from those who ran it so unjustifiably hard, who’ve now been shown to have been quite wrong. As Tiffen writes in the link above:
It is a common criticism of the media that it prominently publishes allegations, but gives less coverage to the prosaic facts that later refute them. But rarely is the disproportion so stark. Rarely has such an edifice of sweeping accusation and extravagant invective been constructed on such a slender factual basis.
Rarely does it do such damage.
Except to the credibility of those who relied so heavily on it, of course. They sail on, undamaged, unchastened, unrepetentant.
65 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
‘itself a vindication of its staunchest critics.’
says you…in reality, not so much.
cbp @15
“The sad fact is that actual Phil Jones and Mann are two very intelligent, enormously talented individuals”
I don’t doubt that. But you can still be the nicest, most intelligent fella in the building and still be a bozo. I’m referring to a lack of perspective and common sense, however temporary, and that did seem to be reflected in some of the worst emails I saw. It’s ok – I’ve been guilty of it too
“The fact that Bolt and his minions think they can hold a candle to these guys is the ultimate delusion.”
Something that just keeps jumping into my head is the question: Why don’t the “skeptics” just get in their car and go talk to the scientists who work on this stuff? I’m not sure if it’s still there, but CSIRO’s atmospheric research group has a center not far from frankston (I’ve been there a couple of times). It’d take AB an hour to get there from the city, tops. Why not just go visit the BOM and talk to the noggins? I’ve met some of the people who work in these places (albeit a while ago) and they have no problem explaining themselves and they’re not inclined to B.S. Access would be EXTREMELY easy – they really aren’t walled towers. Leave the recording devices at the door and just spend a morning talking. I’ll wager that no “skeptic” journalist has even thought of it.
Come on everyone. I’m disappointed in the lack of vitriol in responses to my comment. Some attempts to “correct” me on the science, but I don’t think science is what changes your minds here. I forgot to post this link which shows even this rabid far left scientist jumped ship. Hear his words. It cuts lefties to the quick when their own turn on them.
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html
http://allpainnogain.cfact.org/default.asp
Guys – Col’s taking the piss.
The links he provids above are nonsense. One is to a lunatic conspiracy site (that, among other things, denies that modern medicine has any effect on life expectancy) and the other links to a scientist who quite openly admits a belief in AGW (but rejects the solutions being proposed as ineffective).
He doesn’t really believe what he’s writing here – he’s just trolling. Nobody would be so stupid as to present those links as anything other than a joke.
Col, there’s no point expending vitriol on intransigent stupidity. Ooh,a “rabid far-left scientist” ! In that one description, you’ve encompassed the issue: someone can be a scientist, but if they allow their political persuasion to sway them, then they cease being true scientists. You are a politicised denialist; you have no science. That’s the issue with you. You are trying to prove a scientific point without any good science to back you up.
” I don’t think science is what changes minds here”. Do you realise how indescribably stupid that statement is?
Matthew @ 52
Why don’t the “skeptics” just get in their car and go talk to the scientists who work on this stuff?
Funny you should ask:
During the Copenhagen summit last year there was a very clever service available for journos, where 650 scientists from the American Geophysical Union offered up their brains for the picking on tricky science questions. They were available day and night for journalists covering the conference and only offered up facts, no opinions. A great resource.
Except, no one used it.
.
.
.
And now this service is back again.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/07/28/what-would-you-ask-a-climate-scientist/
Vitriol, aka sulphuric acid, is a major chemical byproduct of the burning of brown coal, which causes acid rain and various other environmental problems. Since Col denies that burning coal can have any undesirable side effects, it follows logically that he should not believe in the existence of vitriol either.
Again, the difference between Col or Ian’s ‘serious’ posts and their ‘wind up’ posts? = 0
They’re simply not credible or intelligent sources for debate, just noise.
The problem as I see it is that a long disinformation campaign has produced a cohort of elderly anglo-saxon males of a rightist persuasion who are able to bark for hours on end along to the denialist theme.
This background noise makes people saying “it’s too late to do anything”, “the world will be better off a few degrees warmer”, seem moderate by comparison.
I think the latter group are more dangerous.
Anthony Watts is a creationist. What does that tell you about the intelligence of his followers?
Silkworm@ 61
Roy Spencer is a supporter of Intelligent Design theory. It seems to go with the territory.
Add John Christy and Ross McKitrick to that list as well.
Add Marc Morano and James Inhofe.
No, its staunchest critics were accusing the CRU of being part of a multi-million dollar worldwide fraud and scientific coverup, which simply wasn’t true. They wanted Phil Jones imprisoned (one suggesting the Tower Of London, no less) and weren’t vindictaed at all.
Even with this vague illusion of “openness” somehow being more conducive to denialists, the science will march on regardless and Climategate and the ensuing debacle of failed journalism will become a long-forgotten footnote in the dustbins of history.
Climategate was hailed by its believers as the end of climate science. The whole discipline was supposed to collapse upon itself and global warming would be proven a hoax once and for all.
Yet here we are. The CRU and Mann are exhonerated and the planet is in the midst of what is set to be the hottest year ever (assuming the coming ice age the denialists keep promising doesn’t eventuate in the last few months).
Iain Hall once asked: “Climate Research Unit emails, a smoking gun for scientific fraud?”
The answer is clearly no.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All