In the view of keeping on pressing the press, I will leave you with the concluding part of Deep Climate's comment #50:
(emphasis added)A rare front-page science feature appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal in February, 2005. That report featured an account of the just-published GRL article by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Which PR disinformation outfit contacted the Wall Street Journal to arrange this prominent coverage? My guess is APCO Worldwide. Or perhaps the Wall Street Journal got the idea from coverage in the National Post, then in the thrall of APCO Worldwide operative Tom Harris. No one knows because the Wall Street Journal has consistently refused to discuss the matter.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. The likes of Patrick Michaels and CEI’s Chris Horner are not legitimate sources for “balance” from the “other side”. Rather, they are appropriate subjects for journalistic investigation. At the very least, they should not be allowed access to reputable journalistic platforms until they come close to the same transparency that most scientists have always exhibited.
The “hockey stick” scientific “scandal” has been manufactured from the start on non-existent evidence, and promoted diligently on behalf of powerful interests. “Climategate” is the real hoax, one perpetuated by complaisant media outlets like Fox News, the National Post and the Wall Street Journal.
It’s high time Andrew Revkin recognized that awful truth. His continued silence on the real issues is a disgrace.
Yo, Andy! It's not just me.
21 comments:
Yes, it's an outstanding thread by any measure. One such is my contribution of not one but two topical jokes. :)
The press won't listen, because they already think they're the smart ones. They imagine themselves to be urbane, shrewd, street-smart, politically savvy, and adroit at playing 11-dimensional political chess, while we 'scientific brutes' know nothing but how to deal with facts and figures.
Really, I think there's no other way out now, except to start exploring how we can use blogging as a platform for solid, good-quality investigative journalism.
(word verification prophetically says "palin")
-- frank
I would recommend reading Judith Curry's comments as well, and the responses.
"Best" in the sense of "worthwhile reading", I certainly agree. In any other sense, it is just a sad testimony to the state of science journalism that anyone can say so with a straight face.
It's not just Andy; it's George, Fred, ..., and don't even mention Tom in the same sentence. Science journalism is dead -- or perhaps it lives on in the "best" threads at places like RC. This time around tight moderation certainly helped.
Gavin did a sterling job, even if sometimes shooting from the hip; his encyclopedic knowledge of a sub-field, and recent literature in it, that isn't quite his own, is impressive. Imagine if he found the time to write all this up properly.
About Curry... I won't pile on. Sad.
Deep Climate has done more investigative journalism than any number of news outlets. It seems that that journalists are afraid to check into the people they use for juicy quotes and balance.
That thread is also noteworthy for the jaw-dropping posts from Dr. Curry.
Of course, Tamino's analysis was first rate and an excellent springboard for discussion.
What are the real issues Revkin is supposedly "silent" on?
--kkloor
Having participated in the whole thread, I predict that Revkin will add Judith Curry to his list of Most Reliable Climate Science Resources ...
It's sad to see a scientist with Curry's credentials commit credibility seppuku as she's done there.
Keith, that the “hockey stick” scientific “scandal” has been manufactured from the start on non-existent evidence, and promoted diligently on behalf of powerful interests, and that “Climategate” is the real hoax, one perpetuated by complaisant media outlets like Fox News, the National Post and the Wall Street Journal.
Hope this helps.
Pity not one word of what you just said is even close to true, MT.
> Hope this helps.
If you dream, dream big...
I find the calls for some kind of awakening on my part on the "real" hockey stick issue kind of silly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23climate.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/
> Tom said... Pity ....
(profile/12747117922597525042)
(Profile Not Available)
There are a lot of Toms in this world. Would whoever this Tom is care to go beyond mere assertion of untruth to cite any good source?
"Pity not one word of what you just said is even close to true, MT."
When it comes to science, I listen to scientific experts.
When it comes to lies, I listen to expert liars.
Tom, you are no scientific expert.
Tamino, Gavin and also Mike, top marks.
Curry? Well...
Amazing to see the passion still envoked by a 12 year old paper.
Something about better to remain silent and have everyone think you a fool than to speak and have the thought confirmed, so I'll be silent now.
[Word verification agrees, stating "rests".]
Andy, so nice that you got up from your nap. Two mild comments in four years, and nothing before that either.
Frankly sir, you are not very convincing.
RealClimate's comment thread structure of blogmaster's response inside the comment text is gutsy and wonderful; a perfect antidote to the Gish Gallop [ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop ]. I am glad Curry bit into that juicy worm and got hooked. She saw the jig is up, and had to disown her entire reply.
It's worse than that, Eli.
Both posts which Andy Revkin point to predate the CRU hacking and thus canot possibly examine the press's role in promoting the calumnies of "climategate".
We at this point are just trying to get the press to try to set matters back so they aren't more absurdly out of balance than they were last fall. What Andy did prior to that was just setting the unsatisfactory baseline. We need to get back to there before we get to making any progress.
It is astonishing that Andy thinks that the two articles he points to are responsive to the problem. The problem is getting the press to reflect on a job very badly botched by the press, and one with huge consequences.
One can only assume that Judith Curry had written a comment with some actual data to back up her assertions, but that one didn't make it through moderation.
"One can only assume that Judith Curry had written a comment with some actual data to back up her assertions, but that one didn't make it through moderation."
If so, you'd expect her to say so over at Climate Progress, but she hasn't.
And apparently over at CA she's said she's giving up on Real Climate, and there's no hint that she's had a substantive post held up in moderation there.
Sorry, you get empathy points for hoping for the best, but it just ain't so.
I really like Tom's contribution to the discussion here. I wonder if he read JC's handwaving, trollish dismissal and got inspired? It's also fun to try to pick out any statements in the original post to see if they're "not even close to true".
Presumably nobody has missed taking note of Tamino's rebuttal of Montford on RealClimate
Untrue?
maybe, like me, some have put off reading the comments
Untrue?
I will leave you with the concluding part of Deep Climate's comment
Untrue?
It's not just me.
Untrue?
Post a Comment