Comments on: Climategate Update

By: BraveWord

BraveWord — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 06:25:51 +0000

Global Warming confuses the untrained. I don’t pretend to understand ice-core graphs http://pruneishbehavior.blogspot.com/2009/11/predicting-global-warming.html

By: Patrick Cameron

Patrick Cameron — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:38:44 +0000

Just found this gem in HARRY_READ_ME.txt:

This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect
nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -
to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other
words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the
project is nearly a year late.

By: Robert G

Robert G — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:56:03 +0000

Jail time is needed for those behind the global warming scam.

By: Vittorio M.

Vittorio M. — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:58:13 +0000

The crooks admitted that they only have the cooked (“manually adjusted”) temperature data. They have destroyed the original incriminating them in fraud evidence.

“It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”

Why would they destroy the original data?

The whole idea of scientific discovery is for other independent scientists to be able to reproduce the results (to verify the claims).

“Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

By: radmax

radmax — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:48:56 +0000

Thanks for the links, Mark. Nice to know that some still carry the torch.

By: Mark B. Evans

Mark B. Evans — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:34:58 +0000

That's why it's hard, it takes a lot of time, resources and money. Only large institutions with significant revenue streams can do it on a regular basis. Some bloggers can do it on their own, but their production is maybe one or two stories a year and then they have to find a media outlet willing to buy it. Nevertheless, there is still a lot investigative reporting going on in this country. Some of it is by the MSM (see the IRE and Pulitzer links) and some by new media outlets funded by grants. See these web sites for examples of investigative reporting: Center for Investigative Reporting Investigative Reporters and Editors Pulitzer Prizes Open Secrets ProPublica The Center for Public Integrity

By: radmax

radmax — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:01:14 +0000

Doesn’t said reporting, unless you are freelance, require editorial approval? Lotta legwork, time and digging involved. (i.e. money) Not to mention outside pressure to keep a lid on it or spin it in another direction. It’s gotta be damn hard and possibly dangerous to do this kind of journalism. Perhaps some of the fourth estate have less backbone than their predecessors, what I call the go with the flow generation.
I’m no expert on the MSM, but is seems to me that these stories are becoming harder and harder to find. Lord knows there are enough waiting in the wings…

By: Mark B. Evans

Mark B. Evans — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:02:09 +0000

Blogging about breaking events is easy – requires little reporting and is mostly opinion and speculation.

Investigative reporting is hard. While we would all love for reporting to be instantaneous, it takes a lot of effort, time and most of all, care. If the MSM is going to look at what happened in England in depth, it needs to read all of the e-mails, not just the ones that have content that serves a particular point of view, interviewing all of the researchers involved, acquiring, or attempting to acquire all of the e-mails from the Centre, not just the ones that were hacked, seeking out credible experts to give context to the scientific issues in play, examining the backgrounds of the scientists and officials whose e-mails are in question, examining the Centre, its reputation, its role in climate research and the debate about it, its funding, and examining the politics and motivations of its principals and so forth.

I’m sure stories such as the one I describe above are in the works but it will be several more days or weeks before a story like that is published.

In the meantime, much of that can be done piecemeal, some by the MSM, and some by the blogosphere, but for a coherent, well-reported story that puts it all together and gives all of it meaning and context, you’ll have to wait.

By: radmax

radmax — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:28:04 +0000

Investigative journalism is rare these days. Seems the only time it happens is when someone blows the whistle or some schmuck makes a critical mistake and let’s the cat out of the bag. Who wants to know about this stuff anyway, when we have American Idol and Dancing with the Stars to keep up with…

By: tiponeill

tiponeill — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:10:23 +0000

How can you question the objectivity of a site that denies climate change and warns us that the gay agenda is destroying the country ?