Despite some protestations that the emails are being taken out of context (one can read the emails here and make up their own mind), the emails seem to suggest concerted efforts by some leading GW scientists from around the world to collude and knowingly manipulate their data to hide contrary evidence to the GW theory (including to manipulate distinct and contrary reports so that they appear to offer agreeing conclusion), collusion to destroy evidence, collusion to silence voices that disagree with their theories by coordinating the blackballing of scientific journals and altering peer-review processes to prevent dissenting voices from being heard, and more (In addition to comments about the death of a critic being a positive thing and statements of desire to do violence against another critic).
Below are some helpful primers and descriptions on the whole affair (the WSJ had a nice central location for everything, hence my multiple links to it). Particularly given the technical nature of some of the email discussions, the primers are helpful in explaining just why their apparent activity was so outrageous:
- "Global Warming With the Lid Off" in the WSJ
- James Taranto on the affair (printed in the WSJ)
- British Critic James Delingpole makes a more vociferous attack in the Daily Telegraph
- And Delingpole offers here a more straightforward argument for "Why it matters."
- A selection of the some of the emails in the WSJ
As I find more commentaries on the scandal, I'll post them.
Once again, with this media-bias line? For one thing, you just cited three articles from the Wall Street Journal, which has the second largest circulation in the country! (Well, well ahead of the New York Times.) How much more mainstream do you need to get?
ReplyDeleteAnd, again, to repeat an old point (if only because I'm too obstinate): in the Internet age, it's becoming less and less important or even note-worthy whether or not the Times covers anything. You have blogs -- a number of respectable ones -- and other websites that will easily source whatever material you need to find, as well as a number of international media outlets (like the Telegraph).
In the old days, evidence of bias or shortcomings mattered, because the gatekeepers were few and far between. Now, not so. Read away.
I'll scroll the links you sent, but a brief question -- does anyone feel bad that this private stuff leaked? I'd really hate it if our own correspondence over the last two years spilled into the public domain because, even though I think we all come across as independent, responsible thinkers, there have been words and opinions I know I at least regret.
ReplyDeleteBut anyway, read this link from the other side as well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
I'm amused that the only thing you latched on to in that was my passing comment about media. :)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I said the NYTimes gave a pretty straightforward article (contrasting it with the WaPo). I guess I wasn't clear in distinguishing that I thought the Times did an adequate job?
Anyway, I was also insufficiently clear when I said "mainstream media." I was actually referring to television media (ie the big networks). I didn't mean newspapers, though obviously you couldn't tell that by what I wrote.
On your last point about privacy issues...I debated if I should include a quick note in my initial post clarifing that I don't condone illegal hacking of correspondence, etc.. I think the person ultimately did the world a favor by bringing this stuff to light, but I also think they should come forward to face punishment for their actions. (With punishment hopefully taking into account that their motivation was just).
Btw, if I'm not mistaken the WSJ now has the largest circulation in the country. It passed USAToday.
ReplyDeleteJust read the RealClimate response. The sections explaining that they would've been more polite if they'd know they were going to be seen by the public are well-taken. God knows my emails would make me look like a jackass and worse.
ReplyDeleteBut on the substantive issues of scientific method, etc I find them very much lacking and unconvincing. They weren't merely participating in "robust" discussion; their emails indicate that they were trying to stiffle dissent and mislead.
On the broader issues of collusion and altering their findings to suit their agenda, etc. I think the response is inadequate and unconvincing (others may disagree, I suppose). If a broader debate on the potential scandal occurs, I don't think these folks will do well in the eyes of the public. (Which is why I assume they'll do their best to kill the story in the crib).