AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it

Here’s a recent story from the Associated Press:

By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, Dec 12, 2009

“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”

Look in the mirror, fools. It’s right there in the CRU emails:

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth

Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454

Now, I’m going to bring to your attention, this entry from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

For more than a century and a half, men and women of The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world. They have gone to great lengths, overcome great obstacles – and, too often, made great and horrific sacrifices – to ensure that the news was reported quickly, accurately and honestly. Our efforts have been rewarded with trust: More people in more places get their news from the AP than from any other source.In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

It means we don’t plagiarize.

It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.

It means we don’t misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.

It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.

It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.

And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

“I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect. The frailties of human nature attach to it,” wrote Melville Stone, the great general manager of the AP. But he went on to say that “the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world’s happenings … ethical in the highest degree.”

He wrote those words in 1914. They are true today.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The AP respects and encourages the rights of its employees to participate actively in civic, charitable, religious, public, social or residential organizations.

However, AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action. Nothing in this policy is intended to abridge any rights provided by the National Labor Relations Act.

Here is a sampler of AP practices on questions involving possible conflict of interest. It is not all-inclusive; if you are unsure whether an activity may constitute a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, consult your manager at the onset.

EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:

Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.

When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.

When a reporter is part of an email thread where one of the respondents says:

On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:

Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??….if
it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.

Jim

It gives the appearance that he is not interested in reporting the other side of the story, especially when he is the instigator of the email thread by saying:

Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?

So, how then would the AP trust Seth Borenstein to do an “exhaustive inquiry” when he is part of the issue?

Perhaps further FOIA documents will tell us just how cozy Mr. Borenstein is with the people he reports on.

Now consider what other members of the media people write about him. From the Tacoma News-Tribune

Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.

When other reporters people can see the bias, AP, you have a problem.

A few days later, spurred on by Borenstein’s initial letter, we see this one:

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:23:09 -0600
Cc: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “J. Salinger” <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi all
Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning
experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and
reviewers need to to also be taken to task here.
I agree with Mike Mann that a couple of
other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper. Making sure that the important
relationships and role of ENSO on interannual variability of global temperatures should
also be pointed out with some select references (as in recent emails and the refs
therein). In terms of the paper, I recommend consolidating the figures to keep them fewer
in number if this is a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 , and 6 with 7. Make sure the plots
of spectra have period prominently displayed as well as frequency and maybe even highlight
with stipple some bands like >10 years. Glad to sign on: I would need an acknowledgment
that NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
Regards
Kevin

More instances of scientists acting like bullies to pressure editors and reviewers to accept the view they hold dear. Notice blogger “Tamino” aka Grant Foster is part of the gang.

Does Seth Borenstein ever report anything about undue pressure on journals exercised by his circle of climate coziness? No.

But to have Mr. Borenstein report upon the investigation of the leaked East Anglia emails, when he himself is part of the emails, is certainly a conflict of interest.

In that story today about the investigation, written in part by Borenstein it says:

The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.

When the AP allows reporters to report on stories they are involved in, and for them to be able to dance around their own involvement in the same story, it clearly becomes a conflict of interest.

It is, in my opinion, time for AP to remove Seth Borenstein as “science reporter”. I believe he can no longer be trusted to report climate science without bias, due to this clear conflict of interest.

The Associated Press

Headquarters
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001

Main Number
+1-212-621-1500

Paul Colford
Director of Media Relations

Jack Stokes
Manager of Media Relations

info@ap.org

NOTE: I misidentified the article in Tacoma News Tribune as being from the reporter, when it was a letter reaction. In the right side is a “Share this story” bar, which aided in my misidentification. I regret the error. Thankfully, our large group of reviewers here caught this error on my part and it is corrected in the story above. – Anthony


Sponsored IT training links:
Download 642-456 questions and answers with self paced 642-873 practice test to successfully complete JK0-016 certification.


About these ads
This entry was posted in media, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

238 Responses to AP’s Seth Borenstein is just too damn cozy with the people he covers – time for AP to do something about it

  1. Ric Werme says:

    Very Good! I was in the process or commenting on http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50707/title/Climate-gate_Beyond_the_embarrassment and included a note about that. When I went looking for something else involving JGR, my WUWT search brought this up! So I added this link there.

  2. Ron Dean says:

    Minor nit: In the headline, something is spelled “somethig”.

  3. Rob says:

    Would not be surprised if Google is delaying or simply not showing up any news stories anti-AGW re recent daily mail on CA not on google news for example change to bing or other?

  4. SMG says:

    Wow! The snowball keep running…

  5. J.Hansford says:

    The bias is so blatant, it’s breathtaking.

    AP is no longer a news outlet, it’s become a propaganda mouth piece for Ecofascism… Pravda for all things AGW.

  6. Daphne says:

    AP = Busted!!!

  7. Leon Brozyna says:

    I left a comment at CA that’s even more fitting for this piece:

    Thomas Nast (1840-1902), cartoonist/satirist, whose famous cartoon depicting Boss Tweed and the Tammany Ring (from New York City 19th Century) ["Who stole the people's money?" "'Twas him"] would have a field day with the revelations of Climategate. I can see it now ~~
    “Who adjusted the raw temperature data?” “‘Twas him”

    Of course, that assumes journalism out to expose malfeasance, not the kind we find practiced today regarding the climate.

    Seth Borenstein is entitled to his opinions. If he has a burning belief that mankind is responsible for warming the planet, that’s fine. Just don’t foist that belief on an unsuspecting public while posturing as a journalist. Change your position from that of science writer to that of opinion columnist.

    Now all we need is for a real journalist to emerge and ask the question, “Who adjusted the raw temperature data?”

  8. Mapou says:

    Well done! Hit them hard where it hurts the most, their professional integrity in the eyes of their readers.

  9. manfredkintop says:

    Just fired off an email. Thanks for posting the addy and individuals to send it to Anthony.

    “To Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations and Jack Stokes, Manager of Media Relation,

    As someone who worked in media for the majority of my career, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of professional integrity exercised in reporting AP’s “Exhaustive review” of the East Angila CRU emails by Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter.

    I have followed this story closely since it broke almost 4 weeks ago. I have read many of the emails and noticed Mr. Borenstien has communicated with Kevin Trenbeth, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann on what seems to be a very informal basis (reference to first names in the email dated July 23rd, 2009).

    Is it not a conflict of interest to have Mr. Borenstein “report” and comment on the findings of AP’s “Exhaustive Review” of said emails when it is indicative that he has close ties with the individuals in question? After reviewing AP’s Statement of News Values and Principals, it is clear that this report has deviated from your posted mandate and policy, which calls into question the the journalistic integrity of your organization.

    Regards,

    Manfred Kintop”

  10. Michele says:

    “Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?”

    I think I wanna puke!!

    Thank you for getting this out. I saw a Seth Borenstein AP story this morning I knew it was blatant propaganda. Great job for getting on top of this. There’s so much disinformation out there. The alarmists are in a nutty rage pointing to how their faith in global doom is totally justified because Factcheck.org or AP or some other trashy piece of propaganda says so. I even saw some GW alarmist radio show host loon on TV today say, “All the scientists in the world know climate change is man made, except for, like, ten deniers.”

    Arrrrrggghhh!

    How do people remain this ignorant? Propaganda from little pukes like Seth Borenstein, for one. What a slimy tool this guy is. Journalism is so tainted in my eyes these days. They’re little foot soldiers of disinformation, these writers. Yick! Orwell couldn’t have written creepier characters than these scum.

    Yesterday, I saw Factcheck.org’s “fact” check of climategate and, basically, they said: There’s no problem with CRU emails. It was just misunderstanding…

    Argghhhh!!

    Then I looked at their source list. My Gawd, they are idiotic enough to include sources like a CRU press release, IPCC, East Anglia, etc. I wrote to FC.org’s editor in a rage and asked “Are you serious!?”

    And some numbskull reviewed the FC post (in Stumbleupon.org) as “thumbs up”: Good unbiased assessment of climate scandal.

    By the way, a week or so after the climategate scandal had already broke, I read a GW alarmist story so hysterical and creepy I bookmarked it for a laugh. Of course, there’s no balanced mention at all of the email scandal raging on.

    Oh, who wrote it?

    That little slimy bastard who has taken journalism and made it something no more respectable than the feces of worms who live in sewage. In my eyes, mainstream media journalism’s dead. Thanks to putrid little creatures like Seth Borenstein.

    Anyway, I wrote a post about how sources like Factcheck, MSNBC are doing blatant propganda here, if you’re interested:

    http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/2009/12/propaganda-101-climate-science-scandal.html

    PS Any male who types “Watcha think”, sounds like a thirteen year old cheerleader. I think he needs to spend some time doing hard core manual labor to get the peppy teen girl living inside him to man up.

    Sorry, I’ve just had it with the demise of truth anywhere.

    Signed,

    Sickened by Seth

  11. Manfred says:

    how did borenstein come to the conclusion, that “science was not faked” ?

    is it no fake to insert secretly real temperatures into a tree ring reconstruction ?
    does he really believe, the authors just forgot to report the manipulation in their various papers ?
    does he really believe, that tree rings are good measures of temperature for over 1000 years, and then suddenly in 1960 stopped to be ?

    how does he know, science was not faked, if papers were waved through by buddy peer review and other were not allowed to be published and others peer reviewed were excluded from IPCC reports and multiple reviewer requests of IPCC reports were just turned by biased networkers ?

    how does borenstein come to his opinion, when the inline comments in various source code tell exactly the opposite ?

  12. Merovign says:

    In a sane world, another media outlet would be all over this.

    If they were actually interested in the truth. Or even competing instead of colluding.

    And Mary, that has to be the misleading headline of the month. Well, maybe week.

  13. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    Journalism today = corporate and government mouthpieces

  14. Bill Tuttle says:

    The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.

    In the referenced e-mail, it was fairly obvious Borenstein wasn’t looking for a reaction for quotes, he was asking which direction the Crew wanted it spun.

  15. jlc says:

    Exhaustive????

    Yeah, well, I just read that and I’m EXHAUSTED

  16. jlc says:

    Well, I’ll tell you Mary
    I’d much rather be

    (fill in your own last line)

  17. Bulldust says:

    Rob (23:33:25) :
    I am keeping half an eye on Google and their reported hits for “Climategate.” Bing’s hits peaked at 50 million plus and have stayed there. Oddly on Google they peaked just over 30 million, and now the “decline” has supposedly set in. That and the fact that Google has reportedly been lowering page ranks for sites containing the word “climatgate.”

    Climategate hits on Google now down to 26.7 million. 1.5 million hits disappeared since yesterday.

    Google is rapidly losing all credibility in my eyes.

  18. John says:

    The part about Tamino was particularly interesting.

  19. MangoChutney says:

    is the BBC involved too? I assume this is the same Roger Harrabin, BBC Environmental Analyst in this email from Jean-Charles Hourcade in 2001

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=240&filename=994859893.txt

  20. Lindsay H says:

    Big brother is watching
    George Orwell Lives!!

    Even his name was an alias for George Arthur Blair !!

  21. Vitriol says:

    google is avoiding this one
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html. We shall remember this when this thing is all over (that is 50% of the world according to surveys). Google you should not be taking sides on this!

  22. Sonicfrog says:

    Here is another example of Mann et al bullying of other scientists, in order to discredit the 2003 Soon / Baliunas paper on the frequency of the appearance of the MWP in published literature. Borenstein missed that one too.

  23. etudiant says:

    Google still seems unable to suggest the word “climategate” as a search item.
    If led up to the brink, by typing in “climatega” the first suggestion is “climateguard” and if further guided to “climategat” the suggestion is “climate guatemala”.
    No input that I’ve found gets Google to suggest “climategate” or “climate-gate”.
    It seems the word has been banned from the Google lexicon.
    Not sure if this kind of censorship by omission is a big deal, but it does seem that Google is interpreting their “Do no evil” principle somewhat loosely.

  24. PhilW says:

    Bulldust (00:51:04) :
    I moved to Bing when I heard al gore had connections with Google

  25. Roger Knights says:

    “Climategate hits on Google now down to 26.7 million. 1.5 million hits disappeared since yesterday. Google is rapidly losing all credibility in my eyes.”

    This renumbering happens with every hot topic. I’m not sure exactly what’s going on, but I think it’s mostly because Google is trying to avoid creating links to essentially the same destination. (BTW, Google “suggests” Climategate when I typed “climate” three hours ago.)

  26. Bonnie says:

    A lot of folks are calling it Climagate now, so try that, too. 195,000 hits in Google. now.

  27. A Robertson says:

    Sorry but I don’t know where to post this link but I think it is worth a read. From the mainstream press in UK’s Mail on Sunday

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

  28. glab says:

    You said:
    …………………………………….
    Now consider what other members of the media write about him. From the Tacoma News-Tribune

    When other reporters can see the bias, AP, you have a problem.
    …………………………………….

    One big problem. That’s a LETTER.

    I guess you and your fact-checkers missed the “/letters” in the URL
    – as well as the huge BANNER that runs the length of the page saying LETTERS.

    Is this an example of the quality of your “research?”

    REPLY: You are correct, and I have fixed my error and put a note in the article. The value of blogs is that all content gets a thorough review by thousands of people, and errors get corrected. But this illustrates a valuable point, Who reviews and corrects Mr. Borenstein’s work? Has anyone found evidence of a mistake and correction in one of his climate articles? -A

  29. Dave UK says:

    So apart from visiting the most exotic places in the world and a limitless expence account. What made you want to be an environmental journalist?

  30. Mark says:

    Results 1 – 10 of about 25,200,000 for Climategate. (0.28 seconds)

    Thats the google count now :(

  31. Aligner says:

    Well here’s one from the BBC, the exception prooves the rule I guess. Interesting comment about pressure from another journalist though.

    Clive James: “Point of View” on BBC Radio 4 Fri, 11 Dec 2009.

    Skip the first 45 seconds. May not be accessible outside of UK.

  32. Vincent says:

    “It is, in my opinion, time for AP to remove Seth Borenstein as “science reporter”.”

    But that assumes that those lofty words “The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world” actually means something. Now come on.

  33. Noelene says:

    From that daily mail link(thanks Mary)
    Last week, an article posted on a popular climate sceptic website analysed the data from the past 130 years in Darwin, Australia.

    This suggested that average temperatures had risen there by about two degrees Celsius. However, the raw data had been ‘adjusted’ in a series of abrupt upward steps by exactly the same amount: without the adjustment, the Darwin temperature record would have stayed level.

    In 2007, McIntyre examined records across America. He found that between 1999 and 2007, the US equivalent of the Met Office had changed the way it adjusted old data.

    The result was to make the Thirties seem cooler, and the years since 1990 much warmer. Previously, the warmest year since records began in America had been 1934.
    end
    The reporter has done a good job,I’m going to thank him.

  34. M White says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    “The Daily Mail is a British daily tabloid newspaper. First published in 1896 by Lord Northcliffe, it is the United Kingdom’s second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun. Its sister paper, The Mail on Sunday was launched in 1982. Scottish and Irish editions of the paper were launched in 1947 and 2006 respectively. The Daily Mail was Britain’s first daily newspaper aimed at what is now considered to be the middle-market and the first British paper to sell a million copies a day”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

  35. Arthur Glass says:

    ” And why on Earth do you think 192 governments are represented in Copenhagen right now? A scam?”

    A goodly percentage of these governments are scams: Sudan, Libya, Venezuela, Iran, Zimbabwe, Bolivia….

  36. Dr. Ross Taylor says:

    A bit chilly in Copenhagen now, fortunately all the UN delegates are nice and cosy in expensive hotels, being paid for, that’s right, by you and me. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations.

    In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C. Please note, I am using the highs, to put the strongest possible case for the warmists.

    Day 1: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.

    Day 2: a high of 7 C, the same.

    Day 3: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    Day 4: a high of 6 C

    Day 5: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    Day 6: a high of 3 C, 8 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    Day 7: a high of 2 C, 9 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    I must be dim, as I obviously can’t grasp the science of global warming.

  37. Arthur Glass says:

    “And why on Earth do you think 192 governments are represented in Copenhagen right now? A scam?”

    Of those 192 governments, a goodly number are scams or worse.

    The UNO is itself a scam.

  38. Dave UK says:

    Luc Hansen:
    Glad to see you have done your bit for the environment by having a kid.
    Well I Haven’t got any, so can I have a 4×4 as a consolation prize please?

  39. M White says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

    ‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’

  40. MichaelL says:

    Luc Hansen (02:09:54) :

    You’re a strange man Luc. What makes you think that any commenters here don’t have the same regard for their chilren and grandchildren? We have looked at the damning exposure of the lynchpins of the whole AGW, Climate Change movement and see falsification of data and science at its very foundations. Every, EVERY, pronouncement based on IPCC, is derived from the same crooked clique. Why should we be happy at the consequent Kyoto and Copenhagen lunacy which would tear the world apart and deliver poverty to ALL world countries – for no valid reason, except the unwillingness or incapacity of individuals, like yourself, to look at the evidence of sleaze which has been revealed – and not denied, committed by this group of climate gatekeepers.

    I also followed the link back to your site. It would appear that you have a blind and twisted take on other matters – and a very selective empathy for young chidren.

    I’m really happy that you are so scared.

  41. Martin Brumby says:

    As well as the amazingly well written piece on the Daily Mail site which a number of readers have posted on (e.g. A Robertson (02:55:22) ), the UK Sunday press also has Christopher Booker’s excellent piece:-

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

    A nice piece showing how British Government / EU policy is exporting jobs and wealth to India and how we are paying for this through our electricity bills (up over 80% in four years and set to double (at least) in the next four).

    And don’t forget the interesting story of how our own beloved Gordon ‘Flat Earth’ Brown, at a time when the UK economy is in power dive, found £1.5 Billion to launch a ridiculous EU wheeze to ‘help poorer countries cut their carbon emissions’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6790396/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Gordon-Brown-pledges-1.5bn-to-European-fund.html

    So why are we the biggest contributors to this project? (£1.5 Billion out of £6.5 Billion from 27 nations + the EU themselves).
    What is it for? How is the money to be distributed? How many tin pot dictators will salt their share into Swiss bank accounts? What reduction in global temperatures will be achieved?
    Do tell!

  42. E.M.Smith says:

    Rob (23:33:25) : Would not be surprised if Google is delaying or simply not showing up any news stories anti-AGW re recent daily mail on CA not on google news for example change to bing or other?

    Well, first I have to state my biases and bigotry:

    I am a Mac bigot and a Linux geek. I can do “that PC thing” if I have to, but I have my preferences and MicroSoft isn’t one of them. With that said…

    We don’t have to make a decision, we can measure. Redoing the search by Mark above, we now have:

    Results 1 – 10 of about 25,200,000 for Climategate. (0.23 seconds)

    (So it has not changed in the last 20 minutes. However, you must also allow for an alternate “spelling”:)

    Results 1 – 10 of about 7,630,000 for Climate gate
    Results 1 – 10 of about 29,800,000 for Climate-gate

    The last variation seems to find many of the things found by the first, so I suspect that Google does a “with and without” if you use a hyphen.

    Bing, however, beats Google “hands down” on the basic search:

    1-10 of 56,800,000 results (for Climategate )

    (May I have a moment of silence, please, I need to hear if my heart has restarted… I think I want to cry… Does anyone have a cookie I could borrow? I need some comfort. 8-{ OK, on with the rest… )

    1-10 of 7,070,000 results (for Climate gate )

    (Yay! Google beats by a tiny smidgeon… )

    1-10 of 50,500,000 results (for Climate-gate; that also shows the “same as with no hyphen plus some that Google does…)

    (Again, a moment of silence for my ego and bias, cut down in the prime of life, slain by cruel and heartless facts… Bing trounces Google on this ‘cut’ as well. I always use Google, but maybe one of the “other” search engines will defeat the Evil One… )

    How about Yahoo?

    47,700,000 results for
    Climategate:

    Though it asks me if I meant “Climate gate”…

    Clicking on that prompt yields:

    75,600,000 results for
    Climate gate:

    (Well, at least I can regain a tiny bit of dignity – and stop sniveling in my tea. Yahoo beats both Bing and Google. Who knew? )

    and finally:

    46,600,000 results for
    Climate-gate:

    Hmmm…. If asked, I’d have guessed Yahoo would be last and Google first. Clearly I had it “exactly wrong”. (Guess why I’m not in market research ;-)

    OK, getting desperate, how about the “minor” engines?

    ask.com has:

    Showing 1-10 of 15,800,000 for Climategate
    Showing 1-10 of 903,000 for Climate gate
    Showing 1-10 of 903,000 for Climate -gate

    (The last one having a ” -” despite my putting no space and suspiciously matching the one with a space… I think they just ignore “-” and insert a space when they see it… But not a lot of joy here.)

    Interestingly enough, Dogpile (a metasearch engine) did not show any ‘hit count’ in a casual observation. It finds things, just doesn’t seem to count how many.

    While http://www.altavista.com had:

    AltaVista found 72,800,000 results Climategate
    AltaVista found 71,800,000 results Climate gate
    AltaVista found 44,400,000 results Climate-gate

    Rather impressive. Don’t know if there is any “double counting” or other un-helpful number inflation here, but it a set of mighty big numbers…

    Well that came as a complete surprise. AltaVista? Sheesh. I had to use a Google of ‘search engine’ to even remind me that AltaVista existed.

    OK, I have no idea what the relative quality of the search results might be, but it clearly looks to me like Google is the “Piker” in this series along with http://www.ask.com and both Yahoo and AltaVista are better.

    Oh, and Bing is pretty darned good too. (But I’ll never admit it in public…)

    It would be needed to repeat this test with something like “Tiger Affair” or “911 Attack” or even “Iraq War” to see if the same percentages hold for non-AGW topics. If they have a persistent relationship, it is probably not a bias. But if Google does a lot better on other topics, with only Climategate in the rear… then it’s likely a bias thing. I’ll leave that bit for others to work out. Right now I need to go change my default search engine to AltaVista… and tell myself it’s OK that Bing beat up Google… really it is…

  43. Doggy Geezer says:

    Off-topic, I’m afraid, but has anyone been following the Arctic Ice figures from IARC-JAXA?

    These have always been my preferred data feed, but the ice rise this year has been marked by quite a few instances where the ice area seems to stay static for a few days, or even decline. I know there have been instrument problems – is this a possible cause, or is something else funny happening?

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm refers.

  44. chip says:

    “And why on Earth do you think 192 governments are represented in Copenhagen right now? A scam?”

    Well, aside from the fact that everyone loves a caviar-fueled junket, the vast majority are developing countries that expect hundreds of billions of dollars to be transferred from the developed world as a result of the conference.

    As for the remaining countries, they are represented by politicians and bureaucrats of the developed world who expect hundreds of billions of dollars to be transferred from the private sector as a result of the conference.

    Why wouldn’t these people show up? There’s no downside. It promises a massive transfer of wealth from the productive part of society to the unproductive.

    It’s heaven for these types of people.

  45. rbateman says:

    Luc Hansen (02:09:54) :

    Money. Sharks circling over the smell of green in the water.

  46. Peter Dare says:

    The UK Daily Mail investigative article, previously linked above, is the best expose of CRU and associates so far. One hopes that it will be widely read by UK and American politicians, media controllers and by those influential scientists who have taken too much on trust for too long. Congratulations to the DM for taking a strong lead. Perhaps their article will shame at least the ambivalent Daily Telegraph to get off the fence and perform a public service comparable to that of its examination of British MPs’ expenses. At least, the DT did report the recent US snowstorm event in some detail. The BBC and C4 news, of course, gave it no mention!

  47. rbateman says:

    Perhaps the MSM will take notice when the Russians start taking the steps they proposed in the early 70’s to combat cooling: Damming rivers headed to the Arctic and staunching the flow out of the Bering Straits, spreading soot on the Arctic ice.

  48. Vincent says:

    Luc Hansen,

    “And why on Earth do you think 192 governments are represented in Copenhagen right now? A scam?”

    The tone of your reply suggest you are not interested in seeking the truth, but have only come here to attack those who are.. The reasons why

    governments are in Copenhagen have nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. First the science.

    The AGW hypothesis is predicated on 4 main pillars. Firstly, they attempt to show that the current warm period is unprecedented and secondly

    that there is no known natural mechanism that can count for this warming. Thirdly, the levels of CO2 have increased due to man. Fourthly CO2

    is a gas that has the properties of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation. If premise 1, 2 and 3 are true, then, they argue that the

    current warming is due to CO2.

    Before 1998, it was the CONSENSUS of researchers that there is nothing unprecedented about the current warming. A wealth of evidence had been

    quietly accumulating for many decades testifying to a period known as the “medieval warm period” during which, Vikings settled in Greenland and

    grapes grew in the British Isles. This was based on historical records, archeological digs, and pollen and sendiment studies, and covers over

    200 scientific papers from all corners of the world. Later still, it was backed up by Greenland ice core data that goes back tens of thousands

    of years, which revealed not just a medieval warm period, but Roman and Minoan warm periods (the ice core temperature data is posted on a

    previous thread).

    Then came Mann’s hockey stick graph that at a stroke, purported to erase decades of accumulated evidence of the medieval warm period. An open

    mind would say that “extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.” Yet this study was accepted uncritically by the IPCC and it took

    several years of freedom of information requests until McIntyre and McItrick could get the data. What was revealed was 1) Mann used a cherry

    picked sample of trees 2) He used a weighting of 390 for one particular tree that showed a prominent hockey stick shape 3) Mann used an

    algorithm that produced a hockey stick shape when red noise was fed into it. McIntyre and McItricks debunking was upheld by Wegmen.

    There have been several more recent Hockey stick attempts, such as the Briffa 2009 study but they all show the same “cooking the books.” To

    date, there has been no convincing study, no whatsoever, that refutes decades of research that the medieval warm period was real, global and at

    least as warm as today. Thus, one of the legs of the AGW hypothesis is surely falsified.

    For the AGW hypothesis to be correct, there needs to be evidence that the current warming is not due to natural variations. We have already shown that the climate moves in cycles – we are now emerging from the “little ice age.” The reason given by AGW proponents is that climate models are unable to hindcast recent trends without the rising CO2 levels. And this is given as empircal evidence? It is no more than a tautology. The models can’t hindcast without increasing CO2 levels, not because the CO2 levels are responsible for the warming, but because they do not understand all the climate mechanisms.

    One of the predicitions made by AGW proponents, is that due to a “radiative imbalance”, the climate should be accumuling heat measured in joules and that a significant component should appear in the ocean heat anomaly. Unfortunately, this has been refuted by observations: the Argo network has not detected any heat accumulation in the oceans since being deployed in 2003. Another prediction is the “fingerprint” of a hotspot in the tropical mid troposphere. This too has not shown up in satellite data.

  49. Plato Says says:

    Upthread a poster noted that Roger Harribin appears in the emails.

    It may be perfectly innocuous, but it made me wonder how many people are getting sucked into this mess either by association by appearing on the Cc list or by active involvement such as Mr Borenstein/Richard Black.

    I imagine that a lot of people are trawling the database for their names – perhaps a more detailed look for lesser well known people would be worth it.

  50. Skeptic Tank says:

    SMG (23:35:02) :

    Wow! The snowball keep running…

    … or, the stonewall just keeps standing.

  51. Jack Green says:

    The same thing that happened to Dan Rather will probably happen here. The AGW scientists will go to their grave claiming doom but will fade from the scene because of the embarrassment of the obvious fraud. People just have a need to hate somebody and this time around it’s capitalism and the free market. Well hate it all you want but C and FM will survive and grow even stronger.

    The have nots that for a large part don’t want to help themselves but only want someone else to help them have learned that they can vote themselves money. This transfer of wealth from the developed countries to the undeveloped is the goal here not saving the planet. The problem is the elites that are so self absorbed that they can’t see the obvious conflict of interest like flying to a save the world from air concert in a private jet spewing jet exhaust out the back while sipping wine and reading about Tiger Woods’ latest fling.

    Sweet and priceless are words that come to my mind at this point. AP looks like a fool and they don’t even know it. Bagdad Bob- “We have them surrounded in their tanks.”

    Thanks Anthony for keeping a level head through all of this. We need to stay on top of this for the press will try and bury it.

  52. Jeff B. says:

    For those who have been asleep at the wheel, this biased “journalism” isn’t just restricted to climate science. PR Cheerleaders like Borenstein looked the other way when it came to scrutiny of candidate Obama, and that’s how he got elected.

    Sites like WUWT are critical to ending mainstream media omission, comission and bias that in no way resembles actual journalism. Read them and wake up.

  53. Stacey says:

    @Deadman
    Clive James, on the BBC, has a very articulatePoint of View on the whole CRUx of the matter.
    Can anyone provide a transcript; it would be essential reading.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p6vln/A_Point_of_View_11_12_2009/

    This is a great post and it is worth listening too. He deals with future prediction in an hilarious way and also warns against realists getting carried away and falling into the trap of the alarmists.

  54. Kate says:

    Anyone mistaken enough to think that Polar Bears are cute and cuddly, should take a look at this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/theweekinpictures/6790446/The-week-in-pictures-11-December-2009.html?image=29

  55. Cap'n Rusty says:

    Luc Hansen:

    The money that would be transferred by the Copenhagen Treaty to the “poor” countries will never reach the people in those countries. Like almost all preceding international “aid” money, it will be pocketed by the unscrupulous rulers of those countries.

    Meanwhile, if you want your daughter to have a future worth living, you should be alarmed about the so-called “climate scientists” who are corrupting the very basis of science itself, upon which all our futures depend.

  56. David M says:

    There is very good interview on ABC’s counterpoint with a climate scientist on
    the email affair.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm

  57. A Lovell says:

    I think it’s time to add a fourth BIG LIE to the list.

    1 Of course I’ll respect you in the morning.
    2 Your cheque’s in the post.
    3 I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.

    4 These emails have been taken out of context.

    By the way, MichaelL, (3:56:21) I also had a look at Luc Hansen’s website. A strange man indeed. No relation to Jim I take it!

  58. JP Miller says:

    MangoChutney (01:25:11) :

    is the BBC involved too? I assume this is the same Roger Harrabin, BBC Environmental Analyst in this email from Jean-Charles Hourcade in 2001

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=240&filename=994859893.txt

    Forget the BBC, did you read Jean-Charles Hourcade’s email??!! This guy is MAD — seeking to “link” GCM models to economic models to predict economic impact?! My lord, how can obviously smart people be so deluded? We can’t predict GDP two years in advance and he thinks what he is suggesting makes any sense whatsoever — in a policy context?

    If this isn’t convincing that this AGW bandwagon is “mass hysteria,” than nothing else will…

  59. MangoChutney says:

    @plato

    Roger Harribin wasn’t copied into an email, it was addressed to him amongst others. The contents of the email are not controversial, but it does make you wonder what access these people had to BBC journalists, especially when you see BBC reports, which are essentially press releases by The Team

  60. Tom in Florida says:

    Luc Hansen (02:09:54) : “You are all mad. Just mad. I have a 15 mth old daughter and I want her, her children, her children’s children etc to have a future not blighted by our generation’s venality.”

    And I do not want my kids & grandkids to have a future of a facist world government controlling their lives.

  61. Kate says:

    Does anyone actually put any stock in this AP announcement?
    Are these guys kidding me? The AP makes this ridiculous statement, and we are all supposed to figure the issue is settled? One of the main suspects said he didn’t do it. That’s OK then. It seems, their conclusions are reached by the fact that nowhere in the emails did anyone say “we faked it”.

    These guys are a bunch of journalists, for goodness sake. Seth Borenstein, for one, has been a hysterical eco-maniacial pro-AGW writer for years and years.

    The University of East Anglia investigation is supposed to take months and months. The Penn State investigation is also going to take months and months. Yet when the Associated Press, a bunch of newspapermen, take a few days and decide that everything is hunky-dory – investigation closed – we are supposed to be impressed. How are we supposed to figure these journalists came to their decision? Did they take a poll of other journalists? Did they poll themselves?

    Conclusions
    1.) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with so much uncertainty, they have no value whatsoever.

    It is impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall, nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. A single tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century temperature reconstruction.

    2.) The IPCC’s so-called “peer review process” is fundamentally flawed if a lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of his own work, where that work is the critical core of the chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger work – in this case, the IPCC summary report and all the underlying technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship of carbon dioxide to temperature that are based on Britta’s work, which is, of course, the majority of such analysis.

  62. John M says:

    I guess this means Seth is more “predictable” than Andy Revkin.

  63. drjohn says:

    I hope this is effective. I have written to them many times but it needs to come from you guys in order to have any real impact at all.

    So many of us appreciate your efforts.

  64. Frank says:

    Interesting article and argument. Thanks.

    However, the argument is weakened, or not effective communicated, when the author makes glaring grammatical gaffes such as:

    “When a reporter get’s…”

    (No apostrophe needed.)

    One of the most embarrassing things that the CRU emails revealed is scientists’ inability to write grammatically correct sentences.

    It’s one thing in an email; it’s entirely another on a published blog read by thousands. Perhaps WUWT can find an editor to help raise the quality of the writing here.

    Of course, stay away from AP editors. ;)

    [Reply: spelling and grammar errors are fixed on occasion. But the primary concern is moderating comments. There aren't enough hours in the day to rectify all the misteaks. ~dbs, mod.]

  65. Ken Hall says:

    “The story that AP SHOULD have written…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html
    —————————-

    That daily mail headline is very misleading as most of the article refers to the holes in the defence of the “trick” and is broadly sceptical of AGW science. The end of the article refers to the Russians admitting that the zip file of leaked info was posted on a Russian server, but ends with saying that anyone from anywhere in the world could have posted it there and it is ridiculous to blame the Russians.

    But then what else would you expect from the religious climate alarmists, but wild and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

  66. Ron de Haan says:

    If it’s your intention to destroy the free world, start with the press and the media.

    That’s what going on here. Conspiracy anyone!

  67. DanB says:

    Hi All,

    Thought I would share with you my latest Zazzle product poster: “Climate Science: Even When It’s Getting Cooler, It’s Getting Warmer”. I admittedly stole the idea from a slogan one of the other commenters posted- it was too good to resist.

    http://www.zazzle.com/climate_science_poster-228981597036801066

    Cheers,
    Dappin

  68. John Reid says:

    Here’s Clive James’ article for those having problems accessing it.

    A POINT OF VIEW

    Having one-sided discussions about climate change helps no-one, says Clive James in his weekly column.

    About 40 years ago now, the world used to hear a lot from a futurologist called Herman Kahn. Of ample girth and unquenchable volubility, Herman Kahn, who died in 1983, was always making confident pronouncements about what would happen in the future.

    So and so, he would say, would happen 10, 20, 25 years years from now. It wouldn’t happen tomorrow, so that you could check up on it straightaway, but it would happen 10, 20, 25 years from now.

    Some of us realised that he had invented a new unit of time, and we gave it a name. In tribute to Fermi, who could measure electrons, we called his new unit of time the Hermie. The merit of the Hermie, as a unit of measurement, was that, while being vague, it sounded impressive.

    The prediction itself might or might not have been right. Herman Kahn predicted that within one Hermie everyone in the West would fly his own helicopter and have access to free-fall sex.

    That didn’t happen within one Hermie, but it still might happen in the next Hermie.

    All we can be sure of is that Herman Kahn’s language exemplified an impressive way of talking about the future, a way of sounding impressive that sounded less impressive only when you realised that sounding impressive was its main motive. Big things would happen. It was big talk. And it paid the penalty of all big talk. As you got used to it, you got tired of it.

    Language of alarm

    Over the last 10 years we have heard a lot about how civilisation would be in trouble if it didn’t soon do something drastic about global warming. But this impressive message tended to sound less impressive as time went on. It wasn’t just that the globe uncooperatively declined to get warmer during the last 10 years.

    It was that the language of alarm wore out its welcome as it became ever more assertive about what had not yet happened.

    The brief, unarguably still hot period, when the world had somehow refused to grow any hotter was soon explained, although it seemed strange that it had not been predicted.

    The world, when it resumed warming again would heat up by so many degrees, or so many more degrees than that, and within 10, 20, 25 years – within a single Hermie – there would be the corpses of fried polar bears floating past your penthouse window.

    According to the media, scientists were agreed, the science was settled, science said, that all this would happen. The media promoted this settled science, and the politicians went along with the media. The whole deal had the UN seal of approval.

    The coming catastrophe that had to be averted wasn’t exactly like knowing when the asteroid would arrive so you could send Bruce Willis, but unless we did something, irreversible damage, if not certain doom, was only a Hermie or two away.

    Today, after recent events at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, that supposedly settled science is still the story, but the story is in question. Suddenly there are voices to pronounce that the reputation of science will lie in ruins for the next 50 years.

    For two Hermies at least, nobody will trust a single thing that a scientist says. Well, even to a non-scientist like myself, that last prediction sounds suspiciously like the others.

    Layman’s reading

    My own view is that true science, the spirit of critical inquiry that unites all scientists, or is supposed to, is reasserting itself after being out-shouted by at least half a Hermie of uninterrupted public relations. But I hasten to admit that my view is not only not the view of a scientist, it is the view of somebody who can still remember the first day he was exposed to calculus and froze as if in a new Ice Age.

    As I said in one of these columns earlier in the season – In praise of scepticism – before the events at the Climate Research Unit, my only position on the matter of man-made global warming was that from my own layman’s background reading I thought the reported scientific unanimity that global warming is man-made, and likely to be catastrophic, was always a more active area of scientific debate than you would have guessed from the way the media told the story.

    Just saying that much was enough to get me condemned by one of the broadsheet environmentalist gurus. He said I was an old man resistant to the facts because I didn’t care what happened to the world after I was gone.

    As I bounced my grand-daughter on my knee, rather hoping that in the course of the next Hermie she would not be obliged to star in a remake of Waterworld as the sea rose 30 feet above her house, I bit back a rude word.

    But the guru still had a point when he said my scepticism about the settled science was a wilful defiance of established fact. Unfortunately the fact had been established largely by the media, who had been telling only one story. If you said the story might have two sides, that sounded like scepticism.

    People in my position had to get used to being called sceptics, as if scepticism were a bad thing. We even had to get used to being called denialists, although clearly it was an unscrupulous word.

    We were also called, are still called, flat-earthers by people like Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, but that kind of abuse is comparatively easy to take, because everybody knows that neither man would be capable of proving mathematically that the earth is not a cube.

    Mainstream media

    So what happened at the Climate Research Unit? Well, basically nothing new. A bunch of e-mails got hacked, or perhaps leaked. Some of the phrases that supposedly reveal skulduggery reveal a lot less when you put them in the context of what, we are told, was only locker-room enthusiasm.

    In the correspondence columns of the scientific websites – where the level of discussion has consistently been miles above anything the mainstream media has provided for the last decade – there are already wise voices to warn that the sceptics should not make the same mistake as the believers by treating any slip they can find in the arguments of their opponents as evidence of the biggest fraud since Bernie Madoff made off with the money.

    That would be Hermie talk, and self-defeating, because the more absolutist man-made global warming case has always looked sufficiently vulnerable just by the way it has been reluctant to listen to opposing voices no matter how well qualified.

    There has never been any point, and there is no point now, in calling the warmists a bunch of devious conspirators against the truth. All you ever had to do was notice how their more strident representatives didn’t want to hear any other opinions, even when the opinions came from within their own ranks.

    Far from there having been unanimity among scientists on the subject of catastrophic man-made global warming, there has scarcely been unanimity among climate scientists. It only takes one dissenting voice to punch a hole in the idea of unanimity, if that voice has a chance of being right.

    There was a time when almost every scientist except Einstein thought that Newton had buttoned up the subject of celestial mechanics. And this time, on the subject of global warming, there was always, right from the beginning, a number of climate scientists who didn’t endorse the alarmist picture.

    You could say that the number was small, and a few of them were vengeful because they had been sidelined for not being sufficiently doom-laden in their claims. But a few of them were older men who just wouldn’t go along with the prevailing emphasis.

    Orthodox view

    One of these few was Prof Lindzen of MIT. I never could convince myself that the professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology knew less about the earth’s climate than I did, so I started to watch him. Hopeless on the media, Prof Lindzen is the sort of pundit with a four figure IQ who can somehow never figure out that you are supposed to talk into the
    microphone.

    His fellow anti-alarmist Prof Fred Singer not only formed a thought too slowly for radio, he was too slow for smoke signals. But gradually, as I watched the side roads, it seemed to me that these few dissenting scientists with zero PR skills increased in number.

    The number of scientists who endorsed the orthodox view increased also, but the number of those who didn’t went up instead of down. I couldn’t do the calculus, but I could count heads.

    There were scores of eminent scientists who signed the 2007 open letter to the secretary general of the UN, and then later on there were hundreds quoted in the US senate minority reports.

    It could be said that few of them had expertise in climate science, but that argument looked less decisive when you considered that climate science itself was exactly what they were bringing into question.

    So science was not speaking with one voice on the matter. It only seemed to be, because the media, on the whole, was giving no other story. Then this Climate Research Unit thing happened, and it was the end of the monologue. The dialogue has begun again.

    The scientists are arguing on the matter, which is the proper thing for science to do, because in science the science is never settled. Some say that the argument about how all this happened will go on for another two Hermies at least.

    We can hear, from deep underground, the contented purr of Herman Kahn. It’s all turning out exactly as he predicted.

  69. Noelene says:

    Anthony
    Can you do anything about Luc Hansen? When you click on his name, it leads to awful images. I feel sick now.

    [Reply: That post has been deleted. ~dbs, mod]

  70. Dave UK says:

    Glab 02:57:11,
    yes you are right. That quote appears to be from a letter and not an article.
    However questioning the other research on here as a result of that minor faux pas is a bit rich.
    Please also apply your obviously rigid standards to the leaked e-mails scandal.

  71. AEGeneral says:

    The AP has a statement of principles? Well color me shocked and call me Dr Proton.

    Thanks for this one, Anthony. I just KNOW my in-laws are going to cut this AP story out of the newspaper and slip it in the kids’ overnight bag for me to read. Just like they do with every story about a polar bear.

  72. M White says:

    I bought the Mail on Sunday this afternoon and can confirm that the article

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    was printed in full, a double page spread on pages 12 & 13. (Paper has 88 pages)

  73. There is a sense in which the media, the climatologists (whom we really should think of as science bureaucrats), and the politicians support and reinforce each other’s ability to ignore public opinion. It isn’t a conspiracy, just a shared mindset: all want to belong to what might be called the good shepherds class, whose task it is to bring us, the public, out of our ignorance.

    See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:

  74. Doug in Seattle says:

    Bornestein et al, say:

    “McIntyre, 62, of Toronto was trained in math and economics and says he “substantially retired” from the mineral-exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases”

    Uh, Seth breathes, so I guess he too produces greenhouse gases.

    Is this AP’s best’s attempt at an ad hominem attack on the integrity of Mr. McIntyre? Pathetic!

  75. wws says:

    Nice to finally see the AP getting outed for the biased, political fraud which it and the rest of the MSM has become. I had never realized how wide a net would be cast when the warming scam blew apart – well, I never anticipated it falling apart this quickly. And now all of the vested interests are going all in to protect it, and yet it is a giant black hole that is sucking their last shreds of integrity down with it. Luc, in his strange ideology worhsipping way had a point – just look at how many institutions have bought into this! The UN, 192 governments, the AP, the mainstream media, most major political parties, the movie industry, not to mention the faculties of most university departments and of course the once respected science journals….

    That sounds like too much to overcome, and yet here is the amazing and joyous part – *every* *one* of those institutions is now going to be taken down at least in part by this, and some will fail completely. (funding for the enviro groups will now begin to be slashed dramatically) This scandal is too big for even the most mighty and the most powerful to withstand, and the more effort they put into keeping it going, the more they will be hurt by the final demise. The smartest players will begin backing out very quickly. (China and India already have)

    Goliath has been felled by an army of Davids.

  76. Roger Knights says:

    Here are some of the objectionable quotes in Seth Borenstein’s story. (I hope others, who have more in-depth knowledge, can find additional quotes.):

    A. “It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.”

    This would have been the point for him to mention that some data has been lost. (If Seth wanted to be even-handed, he could even venture to use sneer-quotes, as I suspect he has on other occasions against skeptics, and say “lost.”)

    B. “Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)”

    First, it’s a mild journalistic no-no to include an “any” like the one I boldfaced, because it nudges the reader into taking sides. (There’s probably a technical term for this sort of insinuating adjective.)

    Second, this would have been the point for SB to mention that the U of A has refused to release its hearing-report, which it is supposed to do.

    Third, I don’t think it’s accurate to imply that the accusee was entirely exonerated. Here are links to the two WUWT threads on this topic:

    Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/climate-science-fraud-at-albany-university/

    Surface Temperature Records in China

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/08/12/surface-temperature-records-in-china/

    Here’s what one commenter, “An Observer,” stated in the first thread:

    ”Read the odd letter [from Albany U] as a lawyer rather than a layman and it all makes sense. The letter says the “the investigation committee finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by Dr. Wang.”

    The operative phrases in this two part sentence are (1) fabrication of RESULTS and (2) having been committed by DR. WANG.

    The way I read the letter – and I have written many similar ones in my career – is that Albany found something. And it was large and was research misconduct. It involved the fabrication of DATA not results and it involved research misconduct by someone other than Dr. Wang. I have my suspicions of whom they are referring to but they are just suspicions.

    This letter is true, accurate and very deceptive. It covers Albany’s posterior while not actually lying. I would venture to guess that Albany has a definition of “research misconduct” that does not include failing to supervise a grad student or failing to thoroughly check the work of your co-author.
    This would also explain why Dr. Keegan was not given the report and why he was not interviewed.

    C. “The “trick” that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data that was misleading, Mann explained.

    First, once again SB has put his thumb on the scale with a reader-leading word, “explained.” This is taking sides. The neutral word would be “claimed.” (My journalistic experience is limited to a stint as a news producer at a college radio station. But even in that lowly position I was sensitive to the connotations of word-choice in cases like this. I’m a bit surprised SB’s editors didn’t catch this pair of cub-flubs.)

    Second, this would have been the point for SB to slip in a salient fact, thusly: “Mann … who is now also the subject of an official investigation …” (The quote is from the Daily Mail’s story of Dec. 13 by David Rose, here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html# .)

    Third, his simplistic treatment of “hide the decline” amounts to a whitewashing. The Daily Mail’s fuller treatment is justly non-exculpatory, to put it mildly:

    ”Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and ‘cooled’ them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
    According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed – but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.

    This is the context in which, seven weeks later, Jones presented his ‘trick’ – as simple as it was deceptive.

    All he had to do was cut off Briffa’s inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
    On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated – but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

    ‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

    ‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

    Since Warmergate-broke, some of the CRU’s supporters have claimed that Jones and his colleagues made a ‘full disclosure’ of what they did to Briffa’s data in order to produce the hockey stick.

    But as McIntyre points out, ‘contrary to claims by various climate scientists, the IPCC Third Assessment Report did not disclose the deletion of the post-1960 values’.

    On the final diagram, the cut off was simply concealed by the other lines.

    By 2007, when the IPCC produced its fourth report, McIntyre had become aware of the manipulation of the Briffa data and Briffa himself, as shown at the start of this article, continued to have serious qualms.

    McIntyre by now was an IPCC ‘reviewer’ and he urged the IPCC not to delete the post-1961 data in its 2007 graph. ‘They refused,’ he said, ‘stating this would be “inappropriate”.’”

    D. ”But in the end, global warming didn’t go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.”

    It’s a bit of a red herring to imply that the entire Climategate controversy is over whether global warming is occurring. The dispute is over whether “the consensus” is any longer entitled to the amount of trust that would entitle it to say, “The debate is over; cut your industrial throat, and pay reparations into the bargain.”

    If the consensus ever had that degree of legitimacy, it’s lost it now. The commanding heights on the warmist side – the CRUsaders, the IPCC, the big-name journals, etc. – have shown themselves to be petty, Pecksniffian, and partisan (e.g., Santer’s violence-tinged remarks). They countenanced or engaged in dodgy data, dirty fighting, and dirigisme — an “I direct” attitude. They had the unscientific, autocratic belief that it was an outrage to say them Nay or inquire into their data methods. Etc.

    Well, the wind has whipped that would-be emperor’s robe aside for a moment and shown us his feet of clay. We see that the consensus has, to a significant degree, been engineered rather than arrived at in a purely scientific manner—a manner that a finding of such great economic and social import requires.

    No longer can King Consensus command assent on his mere say-so. The populace in the US will ask itself, “Can fiddlers and finaglers, or their enablers and excusers, be trusted to take our trillions?” The answer will be NO, in thunder. It’s the populace that’s the sovereign. It will not accept an arrant imposition and abuse of its trust – and, if pushed (by the EPA and courts), it will push back.

    If popular consent is to be obtained, a properly scientific do-over is required, under the auspices of panels of independent scientists from a variety of fields (mostly retired), and with lots of input from climate contrarians. This re-do may seem, to the arrogant top-lofties in the field, like a great imposition on them. But, in a year or two they’ll be begging for any chance at a comeback, when they find themselves in history’s dustbin.

    E. ”None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat.”

    First, only two scientists are named, Vecchi and North.

    Second, as I mentioned in “D,” it’s a bit of a diversion to focus on whether or not the CRUtape letters debunk global warming. That’s not the gravamen of the charge.

    Third, it’s not significant that moderates aren’t yet stepping out of line, because it’s not yet safe to do so (notice how the Team kept their doubts to themselves), and because they’re in to it up to their necks in the groupthink themselves. They can’t turn around on a dime, but have to extricate themselves with circumspection.

    Fourth, I wonder how thoroughly these moderates have considered the skeptics’ case. Have they really heard an extensive and vigorous presentation of the contrarians’s side of the debate? The alarmists have mostly avoided debates, often claiming they would be silly in front of an unscientific audience. OK then, how about a series of video-conferenced debates presented to a scientific audience only? (Perhaps behind the paywall of a scientific society’s website.)

    F. ” Gerald North … headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann’s earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.”

    That’s a half-truth. The NAS sort of agreed (it’s “plausible”) with Mann’s conclusion (“the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries”), mostly because other studies came to the same conclusion. But it did not uphold the validity of Mann’s studies that came to that conclusion. They disagreed with his use of bristlecone pines as good proxies. Here is a link to the lengthy NAS report: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

    Here are the quotes from the NAS report that express little confidence in Mann’s proxies:

    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
    The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.
    Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.””

    ===========

    Summing up, SB’s article contains attempts to subtly demean skeptics, valorize alarmists, omit embarrassing information, and misdirect attention from alarmists’ weak points. When I say that it’s not a bad article, considering the author, you can imagine what that implies about his other work.

  77. Onion says:

    @Martin Brumby (04:13:32) :

    The Booker article is indeed excellent. It is also a taste of things to come. Multinationals relocating manufacturing from West to East subsidized by carbon credits paid for by us! We get stuck with the bill, climbing unemployment and the social costs of all that jobless misery

  78. Lake says:

    My email to AP:

    Please forward to:

    Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations
    Jack Stokes, Manager of Media Relations

    (as listed on AP’s ‘Contact Us’ page)

    I am a science teacher who is reading through the facts and opinions of the CRU ‘Climategate’ email and files in order to present my students with both sides of the debate. I have turned to the Associated Press coverage of many issues in the past, depending on your collective work for accurate quotes, balanced coverage, and unbiased reporting.

    Today, I read a review entitled “E-mails show pettiness, not fraud”, linked here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment//

    The review was authored in part by AP employee Seth Borenstein, and the authors’ ultimate conclusion is that the emails do not show any problems with the science or the data but merely reveal the scientists being petty and human.

    This is a fair opinion from an outsider, and one worth taking into account. However, I was troubled to find that Mr. Borenstein is not an outsider; in fact, he is one of the correspondents in the emails. On July 23, 2009, Mr. Borenstein wrote an email to ‘Kevin, Gavin, and Mike’, three of the principle climate scientists involved in the emails. The email is archived here, in a nested reply: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=988&filename=1248790545.txt

    Mr. Borenstein wrote:

    Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
    It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
    Marc Morano
    is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
    Seth
    Seth Borenstein
    Associated Press Science Writer
    sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
    Washington, DC
    20005-4076
    202-641-9454

    In my mind, this reads as the correspondence of an insider and a person who has a specific viewpoint. I have no problem with Mr. Borenstein having these views, but I am suspicious that there is a conflict of interest when he is supposed to be reporting in an unbiased and objective matter on the same material. His opinion of the emails’ contents has clearly been stretched into the review of referenced above. Because he is part of the email set that he is reviewing, I believe he should recuse himself of this story as a party with a conflict of interest.

    The media, and especially the gold standard of the AP, has a responsibility to separate themselves from the stories they cover. Mr. Borenstein cannot separate himself from this issue because he is in the emails, so he should not be reporting on it, in my opinion.

    According to the The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles (linked here: http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html ):

    …ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

    I am questioning an aspect of Mr. Borenstein’s work, and I believe it should be taken seriously by him and by your organization.

    The following two sections from the Statement of News Values and Principles also apply:

    CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
    The AP respects and encourages the rights of its employees to participate actively in civic, charitable, religious, public, social or residential organizations.

    However, AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action. Nothing in this policy is intended to abridge any rights provided by the National Labor Relations Act.

    EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:
    Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.

    I request that these concerns be forwarded to Mr. Borenstein’s editors and supervisors. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this request and a response from Mr. Borenstein and other members of your staff that address conflict of interest issues. Thank you.

    Joshua Lake

  79. b_C says:

    Seth Borenstein: just another thermomonger.

  80. Jeff Id says:

    I’m not sure any of the AP team can report news anymore. It’s difficult to remember a well reported article from them. They have to have one, but where.

    ——
    I just finished beating to death the GHCN antarctic temperatures. It seems there is about 8 times more warming than actual in the GHCN dataset.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/

  81. Roger says:

    Martin Brumby.
    On the same day that we learned that Gordon Brown threw an extra £300m into the EU pot of £6.5m to combat CC, thus making UK the largest contributor, we learn that the recently announced State Pension increase for April of 2.5% will in fact be restricted to the basic pension of about £100 per week and will not be applied to the other fractions that make up most people’s entitlement.
    And the savings that this will produce? Why, it is £300m !!!
    I live in hope that some MSM outlet will make an excoriating connection, or at least construct a cogent apologia as to why pensioners, already paying for the financial disaster through truncated interest on their savings, should indirectly pay the price for Gordon Brown to grandstand on the world stage and offer largesse to dubious regimes proffering begging bowls.
    Charity begins at home, and if this winter is as cold as last, there will be huge numbers suffering fuel poverty, a condition not visited on Politicians and government servants, all of whose workplaces are heated to unnecessarily tropical levels.

  82. Pat Moffitt says:

    Seth Borenstein admitted in his 2/2/07 AP article “Scientists Pull Few Punches in Climate Report” that IPP science was filtered by politics–“Scientists wrote the report and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments” Why did this not throw up warning flares? Certainly some questions as to why supposed scientific fact required government approval was warranted. And later in the same article he wrote “Scientists wrote the report and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments” Seth Borenstein actually broke the story of the collusion between government and scientists long before the leaked CRU Emails. Perhaps other writers will review Mr. Borenstein’s to see just how deep the collusion runs between scientists, government and the press. Obviously rhetorical.

  83. A Lovell says:

    wws (06:47:41)

    Beautifully said. You have put into words what I sincerely hope is happening. Oh to be a fly on the wall!

  84. Vincent says:

    “The Booker article is indeed excellent. It is also a taste of things to come. Multinationals relocating manufacturing from West to East subsidized by carbon credits paid for by us!”

    Britain has been reeling in recent years from the brutal competition of “globalisation”, so lauded by the taxpayer funded parasites like Blair and Gore. Now we have the next nail in the coffin of Britains economy, a gaming of the system, terrifying in its efficiency and savage in its consequences.

    Beseiged not only by the “invisible hand of the market”, but now the visible hand of bureaucracy, which is itself driving heavy industry to leave these shores for India by giving them billions in carbon offsets which we then have to buy back to earn the right to consume our energy.

    People are starting to wake up. The truth is out of the bottle. And just as the loosening of the grip of the State lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union, so will these revelations do likewise to this new global tyranny. But we must keep up the pressure. Give them no quarter, nor expect any in return. Let the battle be joined.

  85. _Jim says:


    Bulldust (00:51:04) :

    Rob (23:33:25) :
    I am keeping half an eye on Google and their reported hits for “Climategate.” Bing’s hits peaked at 50 million plus and have stayed there. Oddly on Google they peaked just over 30 million, and now the “decline” has supposedly set in. That and the fact that Google has reportedly been lowering page ranks for sites containing the word “climatgate.”

    Climategate hits on Google now down to 26.7 million. 1.5 million hits disappeared since yesterday.

    Google is rapidly losing all credibility in my eyes.

    Right; can you spell out the criteria by which THE COUNT is established anyway?

    It isn’t like you know the process by which this is performed at all – how many dupes of ‘climategate’ were eliminted, resloving them to the primary source.

    Where’s the “breach of contract?” Did you pay for a specified level of performance that wasn’t achieved?

    Geesh. Get a grip man.
    .
    .

  86. Michael says:

    Marc Morano great debate in Copenhagen

  87. Bruckner8 says:

    When my brother majored in Political Science 20 years ago, I used to make fun of him cuz I called Poli-Sci an oxymoron. I used to say “Science has nothing to do with Politics and vice versa. Societies are built on Technology, not Politics. If Politicians actually followed any kind of Scientific Method, the world would instantly improve.”

    Boy, was I wrong.

  88. One big problem. That’s a LETTER.

    Yes, I noted the same thing, by reading the URL. I am a reporter who thinks Climategate is extremely serious, because of the fraud uncovered. But you’ve got to be careful not to let obvious errors like this get through. Even though the substance of your argument isn’t hurt, any error impairs your credibility.

    REPLY: Yes, it was a dumb error on my part. It has been corrected. Note my response above to the commenter that first noticed it. Thank you also for pointing it out. -A

  89. _Jim says:


    Ron de Haan (06:16:47) :

    If it’s your intention to destroy the free world, start with the press and the media.

    That’s what going on here. Conspiracy anyone!

    Ron, our dear little conspiratorialist, it is the drive, the desire, of every one of us to have some ‘control’ over our lives, our life, and even of those around us who may seem to be in need of of that ‘control’.

    Control; Teachers do it . Bosses do it. Girlfriends do it. Wives do it. City Councils do it. Professional societies do it. ‘Standards’ bodies do it. Law enforcement types of many persuasions (including code enforcement etc.) do it.

    It is the DEGREE to which we have negotiated allowance of that control would seem to be at stake here and it has little to do with the Bilderbergers or the CFR or any over bogey-man based shadowy group.

    To that end, get OVER it.
    .
    .

  90. chris y says:

    I have a nomination for quote of the week. From commenter TJA at Climateaudit, Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 6:55 AM on thread Daily Mail: Special Investigation-

    “My opinion is that the Hockey Stick is sawdust now, and the emails make it pretty clear that “The Team” knew this at the time. In fact, one of the funniest things about the emails is that they show there was a “Hockey Team” except it was a little unbalanced, being composed of left wingers and slow defensemen and a goalie who counted on the goal judge not to switch on the red light when the puck crossed the line.”

  91. photon without a Higgs says:

    the AP is just part of the left controlled media. they’ve been having to lie all along about global warming. ClimateGate is making them tell bigger lies. that’s all.

    ———————-

    the only problem i see since ClimateGate broke is THE ‘SKEPTIC’ SIDE IS DOING NOTHING TO LET THE WORLD KNOW ABOUT THE COMPUTER CODE!

    It’s up to our side to tell the world. But we’re just playing small ball talking about one very small part of ClimateGate.

    It ridiculous to expect those who have political agendas to suddenly drop that agenda after all these years and to start caring that the real story be told.

  92. photon without a Higgs says:

    the AP is just being itself.

    We are making it easy for the political left to sweep ClimateGate under the carpet.

    I haven’t seen one ‘skeptic’ on tv, not one, talk about the enormity of ClimateGate. As a matter of fact I saw one minimize it. And that was, of all people, Steve McIntyre.

    If the real story of ClimateGate is going to be told in the media then skeptics are going to have to stop waiting for someone else to do it.

  93. Arthur Glass says:

    “Societies are built on Technology, not Politics. If Politicians actually followed any kind of Scientific Method, the world would instantly improve.”

    Way to Marxist for me! Structure and superstructure and all that.

    In fact, it was part of the allure Marxism exercised over the European intelligentsia that it pretended to be able to reduce the complexities of human societies to a sort of ‘social physics’ (the term, I believe, is Comte’s), processes that can themselves ultimately be reduced to the physical laws that govern inanimate matter.

  94. Mariss Freimanis says:

    We should take what Seth Borenstein says on faith. He is a “peer reviewed” reporter.

  95. Arthur Glass says:

    Jim: To paraphrase Juvenal, Who will control the controllers themselves?

    Boy, ‘Bilderbergers’ is certainly a blast from the Looney Tunes ’70’s. How about the Trilateral Commission?

    Is that sulfur I smell, or Lyndon LaRouche?

  96. photon without a Higgs says:

    J.Hansford (23:42:11) :

    The bias is so blatant, it’s breathtaking.

    AP is no longer a news outlet, it’s become a propaganda mouth piece for Ecofascism… Pravda for all things AGW.

    ————————————-

    The mainstream media has been controlled by the political left since probably the days of Walter Cronkite. This is nothing new. Global warming is from the political left. What the AP is doing is no surprise.

    —————————————–

    That the ‘skeptics’ are letting ClimateGate slip through their fingers because they thought the left wing media would make it a big story but the opposite is now happening—THAT IS A REAL TRAVESTY!

  97. Invariant says:

    Dear Anthony,

    Suggestion for new thread “Argo raw data – hidden due to cooling?”

    Best Regards,

    Invariant

    http://denver.craigslist.org/pol/1507633812.html

    The Argo data is extraordinarily difficult to find on the Internet. There is no official or unofficial website showing the latest ocean temperature. Basically the only way to get the data is to ask Josh Willis (above). The graph above come from Craig Loehle, who got the data from Willis, analysed it, and put the results in a peer reviewed paper available on the Internet. Given the importance of the ocean temperatures, don’t you think this is extraordinary?

    If the Argo data showed a warming trend, don’t you suppose it would be publicised endlessly?

    So what’s going on? Our best data, from satellites and Argo, says that both the air and oceans have not warmed for at least five years now. In the short term, some cooling force is overpowering the warming due to human emissions.

  98. Steve Oregon says:

    Prof. Mark Maslin in that video is hopelessly lost in both delusion and dishonesty.
    This is what it has come to. A mixture of various afflictions and mushrooming dishonesty in a panic to preserve the agenda with these fresh embellishments of pretentious caring and commitment to saving the masses.

    Even before ClimateGate lefty talk show host Thom Hartman embellished nearly every aspect of the movement including his warnings about total ice cap loss and a BILLION climate refugees.

  99. igloowhite says:

    The AP and the NYT defend the awards and citations of Lt. for life John F. Kerry to this very hour. The AP, MSM etal have an over load of lies to defend.
    They now drown in their on lies and fraud.

    Some one step on their head, they have gone under two times, cry out
    THIRDS AND STEP ON THEM.

  100. Back2Bat says:

    _Jim (08:30:50) :

    [snip]

    Control; Teachers do it . Bosses do it. Girlfriends do it. Wives do it. City Councils do it. Professional societies do it. ‘Standards’ bodies do it. Law enforcement types of many persuasions (including code enforcement etc.) do it.

    But of course, Jim. The HUGE difference is when folks use government guns, tassers, prisons or fines to control others. I will never get over that.

    a rule of thumb:

    1. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others.
    2. Bad ideas should not be forced on others.

  101. Vincent says:

    Marc Morano hardly got a word in with that “professor” interrupting him constantly. Still, he reeled off an impressive array of facts about the ice extent recovery and reacted strongly to the claim that 5,000 scientists are supposed to be supporting the science. This is a myth ripe to be deconstructed. It wouldn’t take a lot of effort to start with the imagined 5,000 and finish with the actual number – about 50.

  102. Jack in Oregon says:

    Here is the latest ARGO data… it took less then 10 seconds to find.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/latest_data.html#compressed

    The original hand written “raw” land records for the US are available in PDF, as has been commented about already a few times.

    The minute by minute data for the airports is available for most of this decade.

    The reality is that the data is “still” out there. Until lately, no one cared enough to look at the status or quality of the data. It is my personal opinion, that the data needs to downloaded, staged and made available on an open source server making it easily available for *anyone* to look at or graph the data.

    A terabyte or two is nothing in todays computer hardware world.

  103. Ron de Haan says:

    Two weeks summer in Australia guess and what happens…
    It’s snowing in Victoria!

    Where is the media coverage of such a remarkable event.
    They are still worried about Anthropogenic Global Warming right!
    Global Cooling does not look what it is, it’s Global Warming.

    I have one question. How much Government money has been paid to make them write all that Climate Rubbish.

    Follow the money, connect the dots and start ordering “peck and feathers”, we will need a lot of it.

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/a-snowy-dusting-in-victorias-summer/13262

  104. photon without a Higgs says:

    Michael (08:26:11) :

    Now Mark Maslin is saying it’s 5000 scientists.

  105. jack morrow says:

    Jim 08:30:50

    Get over it? How can we get over people taking our tax money and conspiring to get even more and have more control over us while pretending to be scientists and saving the world. Almost the same thing happened in the 70’s as pointed out many times here on WUWT. Anthony has shown how bad some of these temp sites are ,yet these guys use them because it just fits their schemes. Get over it?–I’ll get over it when I see some of them shamed and or prosecuted or losing their esteemed jobs.
    We are also told to be nice and respectful and don’t make too many waves.Yet at the same time the anti agw folks are called deniers or other disrespectful names. I wonder how many times Thomas Paine was told to “keep it down”.Some of our Senators and Congressmen should be standing up and shouting “I OBJECT”. No,they just seem to try to get along.
    Thank goodness some folks do believe in conspiracies and investigate and try to expose them when they do find them-like now.

  106. photon without a Higgs says:

    Vincent (09:27:15) :

    Marc Morano hardly got a word in with that “professor” interrupting him constantly.

    The more they interrupt the more I like it. They broadcast their insecurities to the world by it!

    Finally, debate!

  107. Kevin Kilty says:

    A Robertson (02:55:22) :

    Sorry but I don’t know where to post this link but I think it is worth a read. From the mainstream press in UK’s Mail on Sunday

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    Yes, it is worth a read, but the headline tells us something inadvertently about the best of journalism. The story about Russians admitting that the e-mails were uploaded to their servers, is not what the headline pronounces, and is not really the subject of article at all. Even a very even-handed story like this has a misleading headline–oh truth, where art thou?

  108. juanslayton says:

    Just sent this off to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. They’ve been fairly good lately about printing minority views.
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    “Your readers might be interested to learn that reporter Seth Borenstein (“Report: Hacked e-mails….”, p. A18 in Sunday’s paper) is himself a contributor to and recipient of the CRU correspondence. So he is investigating and reporting on his own behavior, in apparent violation of Associated Press professional standards.

    “Readers who believe the data hasn’t been compromised should get on line and read for themselves, not only the e-mails, but especially the computer coding comments, which Borenstein, Satter, and Ritter have simply ignored. A fairly forceful discussion of the journalistic standards can be found at http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    John Slayton
    260 Sundance Ct
    Azusa CA 91702
    626 969-9061

  109. Way to go Watt!
    Can you post a petition that we can all sign?
    Thanks,
    Hans

  110. _Jim says:


    Back2Bat (09:24:51) :
    But of course, Jim. The HUGE difference is when folks use government guns, tassers, prisons or fines to control others. I will never get over that.

    a rule of thumb:

    1. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others.
    2. Bad ideas should not be forced on others.

    Snipping at ankles (ankle biting; think: small yipping dog making noise to no purpose)

    At this rate the ‘NWO’ will find you (us?) an easy mark.

    Curative action: Educate yourself (first and foremost, REAL education, not this conspiracy-based carp [sic]), write your congresscritters, write the AP in regards to Seth’s violation of AP’s own “STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES” and become involved in the mainstream political process. This means no third parties, no appeal to lauP noR as a ‘savior'; it means hard work, it means letter writing, it means you doing legwork and campaign work for candidates in your district and, quite literally, getting the vote out for your candidate(s) …

    – and turn off Alex Jones (‘Jack Blood’ et al), Joyce Riley and ‘The Power Hour’. They do nothing but cause you to burn energy and resources uselessly and will figuratively ‘suck your brains out’.

    Conspiracy theories are the tool of the weak-minded.
    .
    .
    Moderators, an appeal to leniency in snipping this post, pls.

  111. Roger Knights says:

    PS: Regarding item my item F above, I should have added that the NAS Committee endorsed all of Mann’s statistical criticisms of Mann’s hockey stick. WUWT commenter Allan M R MacRae wrote, “The North Committee reached strong conclusions that condemned Mann’s hockey stick, but the Committee Chairman, Dr. North, aggressively obscured those conclusions in his public statements. Dr. North displayed an appalling lack of objectivity, imo. The Wegman Committee reached similar very negative conclusions about Mann-made global warming, and were far more forthright in their comments.”

    MacRae also said:

    “As a result of a Material Complaint filed by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre, Nature issued a Corrigendum in July 2004, a correction of Mann’s hockey stick. It acknowledged extensive errors in the description of the Mann data set, and conceded that key steps in the computations were left out and conflicted with the descriptions in the original paper.”

    So it was misleading of SB (in the words quoted at the start of item F) to invite the reader to come away with the inference that Mann was fully vindicated by the NAS and (by further implication) that McIntyre was a mere pest.

  112. hotrod says:

    E.M.Smith (04:25:53) :


    It would be needed to repeat this test with something like “Tiger Affair” or “911 Attack” or even “Iraq War” to see if the same percentages hold for non-AGW topics. If they have a persistent relationship, it is probably not a bias. But if Google does a lot better on other topics, with only Climategate in the rear… then it’s likely a bias thing. I’ll leave that bit for others to work out. Right now I need to go change my default search engine to AltaVista… and tell myself it’s OK that Bing beat up Google… really it is…

    I decided to try a relative skill test between Altavista, Bing and Google on a search term that had no likelihood of being politically charged, by searching on a last name that I know to be a very rare spelling.

    The relative results are:
    Google 41,700
    Altavista 21,400
    Bing 5110

    I then did a search on a neutral technical term that includes two words separated by a space —- heat pipe

    The relative results are:
    Altavista = 60,400,000
    Bing = 13,000,000
    Google = 11,000,000

    It appears that on terms that have no political impact and only depend on the search engine indexing very obscure references like cemetery listings, birth and death listings in news papers etc. Google far out performs Bing.

    On a technical term like Heat pipe google is the clear loser of the three. With out following a few million links I can’t say anything about the relevance of the hits on Altavista, but it is clear from these tests that it is bad technique to rely on only a single search engine if you are looking for best possible coverage on any topic.

    The conclusion I draw from that is:

    Bing is actively crawling the web and looking for links to climate gate, as it appears to not have the same index depth for obscure search terms. That Altavista is a competent search engine, but still falls short of Googles reach in some areas, but is superior in others. Google has the reach and raw data capacity to find much larger numbers of obscure references and on climate gate is limiting output for one of several reasons. It could be excluding duplicates, although that appears unlikely, since if you go to the end of listings the number of hits does not increase significantly if you select the option to not exclude duplicates “If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.”.

    Google search for climate gate with no restrictions = 29,200,000
    Search for climate gate do not exclude duplicates = 29,300,000

    For some reason Google is not indexing as many hits as Bing on a highly controversial topic. It would be interesting to see if there was some entire class of “hits” that Google is excluding that Bing is picking up. Unfortunately that would take sophisticated analysis of the actual nature of the hits indexed by each search engine and a statistical analysis of the fractions that appear from news organizations, high traffic blogs, minor news outlets etc. to see if some sub set or hits are systematically being excluded.

    I am beginning to doubt that there is some “intentional” skewing of results by Google, but there are clearly differences between various search engines on their competence to find certain terms due to differences in how they index “hits”, and crawl the web.

    Perhaps the only lesson here is that sole source supply on any subject or news item whether you are talking about the IPCC as a data source or a search engine can lead to biased results.

    Larry

  113. imapopulist says:

    His bias affects the entire organization. When the tide turns on this issue he will be “pursuing other interests”.

    Until then I have zero confidence in the AP being anything other than just another biased media outlet.

  114. Invariant says:

    Jack in Oregon (09:29:39) : Here is the latest ARGO data… it took less then 10 seconds to find.

    Thanks. Is it possible to view a curve with the global sea temperature average from ARGO online? Something like this:

    http://climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm

    If not, why not setup a server that can automatically download, process and display the global temperature sea average according to ARGO?

  115. Well said! It’ll be interesting to see AP’s response.

  116. paullm says:

    1:16pm, 20091213
    CNN, Byorn Lomborg just nailed Paul Krugman.

  117. Kevin Kilty says:

    Roger Knights (06:48:16) :

    The longer the post here the more I am tempted to skim, but your long post was worth a skim, then a careful reading, and maybe a second. Thanks.

  118. kwik says:

    google climategate is down to 24 million today.

    A couple of days ago it was 28 million. Shouldnt the number increase ???? Is it the Gorgle effect?

  119. Ron de Haan says:

    [2nd notice -Ron - your email is still non-functional.

    Can't let you post anymore until I get a valid email in your comments. the "2fly" domain is not even registered - Anthony]

  120. PaulH says:

    I dunno guys. I think we should give Mr. Borenstein a break. It is my experience that if not all, then the vast majority of “science” reporters do not have sufficient cranial capacity to grasp even the slightest technical concept. And that’s not just limited to climate science. Medical, mathematical, computational, any branch of physics or chemistry, etc, etc. They’re all pretty hopeless. Borenstein was simply another of that gang in way over his head.

  121. wsbriggs says:

    Do not think that Google is neutral in any way shape or form. They regularly modify their search criteria for countries who control “free internet access”. See China.

    They will change things if pressured – follow the $.

  122. AdderW says:

    Yahoo
    climate gate 40.300.000
    climategate 73.900.000

    altavista
    climate gate 40.300.000
    climategate 73.900.000

    bing
    climate gate 7.000.000
    climategate 11.300.000

    Google
    Climate gate 6.950.000
    climategate 2.910.000

  123. Hangtime55 says:

    The revealitions of the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit

    leaked emails and documents proving that reaserch data in favor of

    Anthropological Global Warming community was intentionally manipulated is

    another tool for the anti-Global Government community that proves that Climate

    Change isn’t just a scientific issue but would of been a political issue in

    Copanhagen as well .

    I assume that ‘ Watt’s Up With That ‘ has gotten more ‘ hits ‘ on their website in

    the last weeks then ever before. For those of you here who I’ve wittnessed

    discussing your craft ,its quite clear that the data from the CRU was altered .

    As with the Associated Press (AP) , a Mainstream Media outlet that continues

    with the largest Newspapers and Television News stations to surpress

    information about such issues as ClimateGate from the public in favor of their

    corporate guidelines (censorship) . For the large number of people that no

    longer trust the Mainstream Media for accurate reporting , the alternative media

    is more in favor .

    Seth Borenstein science reporter from the AP is mentoned in the CRU emails

    ? I didn’t know this . Therefore Borenstein is a accessory to the crimes of Data

    Manipulation, Suppression of Peer-Review Process, Blacklisting, Data

    Destruction, Willful Violation of Freedom of Information Act requests. It is clear

    that Borenstein along with people like Phil Jones are making a stand on the

    issue , how ever feable it may be .

    My disappointment in Mainstream Media reporting , and primarily in AP

    reporting has been constant ever since the controversy involving Obama’s

    eligibility as a Presidential Candidate due to not being a “natural born citizen”.

    While Obama was running for the congress seat in Illinois 5 years ago , a report

    from AP on June 27, 2004 stated :

    ” . . . Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take

    over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the

    race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations . . . ”

    AP declared Obama as being Kenyan borned 5 years ago but now the AP is

    silent on this issue today .

    When the Meteorological office was called up by the IPCC to do Damage

    Control on ClimateGate , the Met had fumbled the ball before ever moving pass

    the line of scrimmage . On Saturday, Dec 12th, 2009 the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) criticised the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the UK Met Office for their political intervention in the international negotiations currently taking place in Copenhagen. The Met had even gone so far as to have its members sign a petition defending (their) Climate Change Science and in a passage from the Met Petition :

    ” . . . They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional INTEGRITY . . . ”

    In the Associated Press Statement of News Vaules and Principles :

    ” . . . But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of INTEGRITY and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news . . . ”

    I’ve been hearing and reading alot about this Integrity that both the Met and the AP say to have but I haven’t been seeing it .

  124. orvict says:

    google shot themselfs in the foot.
    When a bias became aparent or even percieved, people started avoiding google.
    I purged google from my computer, how many others did likewise I can only guess.
    The lower numbers for google could be a reflection of market share lost.

  125. DJ Meredith says:

    Give Borenstein a break?
    If he’s contacted anyone of the other camp to question the matter, then he’d deserve it. Right?

    As to Google’s 24million down from 28million, they were applying Yahoo’s ‘trick’, and the number was taken out of context.

  126. chris y says:

    I posted a comment over at Dot Earth concerning NASA’s water cycle discussion on how weather dramatically cools the Earth from an otherwise intolerable 67 C for a weather-free, atmosphere-laden, greenhouse-rich Earth.

    http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle

    the relevant section- “If the earth were in radiative equilibrium, with an atmosphere, the surface temperature would be 67°C. This does not happen because water evaporates from the surface, mostly from tropical seas, cooling the surface. The hydrological cycle keeps the greenhouse effect from heading to an overly hot planet.”

    Interestingly, Dr. Roy Spencer makes the same argument in his excellent 2008 book Climate Confusion on page 54-
    “Because, while many people have heard that ‘the greenhouse effect makes the Earth habitably warm,’ virtually no one has heard that ‘weather makes the Earth habitably cool.’ Quantitatively, the cooling effects of weather are actually stronger than the greenhouse warming effect. So, why is it that we never hear about that in discussions of global warming? HMMM?”

    So far, we have the climate realist Roy Spencer and Gaia-hugging NASA oceans in complete agreement.

    Along comes Andy Lacis from NASA GISS, who throws NASA oceans under the bus today at Dot Earth-

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/10/skeptics-hold-fast-in-copenhagen/?sort=oldest&offset=5

    “Chris Y, in comment #83, has pointed out what appears to be an embarrassing bit of erroneous PR information on the part of NASA that has clearly fallen far short of its intended objective.”
    “It is painfully clear that whoever wrote this, really had no clue of how the Earth’s greenhouse effect works,…”
    “I hope that NASA will fix this bit of embarrassment soon, and have their next PR piece checked for basic accuracy by someone knowledgeable in the field.”

    Now that NASA GISS has been alerted to this PR ‘leak’, I expect the NASA site linked above to be ‘adjusted’ in the next few days or weeks to conform…

  127. Kevin Kilty says:

    PaulH (10:28:46) :

    I dunno guys. I think we should give Mr. Borenstein a break. It is my experience that if not all, then the vast majority of “science” reporters do not have sufficient cranial capacity to grasp even the slightest technical concept. And that’s not just limited to climate science. Medical, mathematical, computational, any branch of physics or chemistry, etc, etc. They’re all pretty hopeless. Borenstein was simply another of that gang in way over his head.

    I have a student in two of my courses now, a calculus-based physics and intro to engineering, who got a degree in science journalism from a big-name school. He had to take quite a survey of science for this degree; but these were all science for non-majors courses, and as he says himself, he didn’t learn anything of substance from them. I suspect he got the usual idea of science-as-heap-of-facts reinforced; when, in fact, science is a process. One could follow the prescriptions of this process in any endeavor to improve its credibility–even journalism.

  128. paullm says:

    2 pm, EST Today, (16 minutes into the show, 2nd segment); Sunday on Fox News Channel:
    Sen. James Inhofe vs. Rep. Ed Markey on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday (replay from 9AM); Replayed, again at 6PM.

    A fair overview of US and global governmental status. Not enough time to clearly get much out of the issues. These are vet politicians. Some interesting details. Clarification? TV debates are obviously a very, very difficult venue.

    Markey showed his superior ability through clever bites and diverting focus to his agenda. Some flashy “specifics” (“tree ringed circus” unfounded as they may be).

    Inhofe good at providing background, but he required additional efforts by interested viewers – not good for reactionary/emotional convincing.

    Fox summary “Markey: Climate-Gate Has Become ‘Tree Ring Circus'” at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/13/markey-climategate-tree-ring-circus/

    Additional:
    ‘Stossel’ Premiere to Take on Global Warming; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579963,00.html?test=economy

  129. Reporters and scientists are both supposed to be skeptical and lean over backward to find flaws in a favored theory. You don’t need to be an expert in science or journalism to grasp that concept. There’s a saying in journalism that applies here, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

    And when a top climate scientist tells a colleague not to reveal the “dirty laundry,” to skeptics, that’s a red flag for fraud. Funny how the AP’s allegedly comprehensive investigation failed to discuss that email.

  130. MarkA says:

    In spite of -30 to -50 F cold, the citizens of Edmonton still found time to protest last evening as they demanded a cooler climate. See this article entitled “Frigid Climate Protest” :

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/12/13/12138496-sun.html

    Is this funny or what?

    For those who don’t know, the minimum temperature last night at Edmonton Int AP was -50 F and the headlines read “Prairies Hit with Extreme Cold Snap”.

  131. Manfred says:

    Roger Knights (06:48:16)

    great post exposing some of borenstein’s manipulation in detail.

  132. Smokey says:

    PaulH (10:28:46),

    There are major differences here. If a journalist has an undisclosed vested interest in taking sides like Borenstein did [before he was outed], that’s an ethics violation no matter what the subject being reported on, no?

    The difference between the CRU, UN and Penn State climate scientists and the others that you mention is that those others are not part of a major, secretive and coordinated effort to transfer $Trillions more from the taxpayers of the U.S., the UK and the EU to their governments, and then on to other countries via the UN — based on unsupportable scientific claims and no reproducible empirical evidence. In other words, those corrupt climate scientists are saying to the world, “Trust us” — while Borenstein is secretly conniving behind the scenes with them for the best way to handle critics, honest scientists, and the public.

    Seth Borenstein is not only right in the middle of the climate scam, but he deliberately hid that crucial fact — until he was caught red handed when the emails were leaked.

    If the AP had an ethics policy actually in force, it would have taken immediate action against Borenstein when it became apparent from the leaked emails that he was acting as Mann’s personal propagandist in private, but acting as an just another columnist in public.

    Since the AP took no disciplinary action against Borenstein for his glaring ethics violation, it means the AP condones Borenstein’s secret strategizing over how to best sell AGW to the public.

    So no, Borenstein wasn’t just another guy in way over his head. He was cooperating behind the scenes as the Team’s propagandist and publicizing their story, while denigrating those asking serious questions. And he kept that critical information from the public.

  133. Steve (Paris) says:

    “So it is clear, since there will be no end to time and the world is eternal, that neither the Tanais nor the Nile has always been flowing, but that the region whence they flow was once dry: for their effect may be fulfilled, but time cannot. And this will be equally true of all other rivers. But if rivers come into existence and perish and the same parts of the earth were not always moist, the sea must needs change correspondingly. And if the sea is always advancing in one place and receding in another it is clear that the same parts of the whole earth are not always either sea or land, but that all this changes in course of time.. ” (353a14-24)

    Aristotle (but Borenstein and Al Gore know better)

  134. Reed Coray says:

    photon without a Higgs (09:38:05) :

    Michael (08:26:11) :

    Now Mark Maslin is saying it’s 5000 scientists.

    They’re breeding faster than rats. Oh wait, that statement is self contradictory.

  135. Steve (Paris) says:

    Here’s the link for Aristotle on meteorology

    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.html

  136. M. Simon says:

    In a sane world, another media outlet would be all over this.

    We do live in a sane world. And not just a Media Outlet is on them. tens of thousands of media outlets:

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/ap-investigates-climategate.html

    Also keep an eye on my buddy Eric at Classical Values. He is really smart and a most interesting writer. Disclaimer: he is also a personal friend.

    Which means you can add points to his rating.

  137. Back2Bat says:

    _Jim (10:00:34) :

    {snip}

    “Conspiracy theories are the tool of the weak-minded.”

    Perhaps, I would not know.

    Gee Jimmy, you are great at casting me as a straw man. As far as conspiracies go, I have no problem with them else we are dealing with thought and speech “crimes”.

    Let folks conspire. I conspire to bring down central banking.

  138. Smokey says:

    “Now Mark Maslin is saying it’s 5000 scientists.”

    OK. Name them, Mark. Give us a list. A citation.

    Anything but a baseless opinion.

  139. Jack in Oregon says:

    Invariant posted at (10:10:49) :

    Jack in Oregon (09:29:39) :

    “…If not, why not setup a server that can automatically download, process and display the global temperature sea average according to ARGO?”

    I agree, I believe we need to build a system like that. Today’s servers have the ability to be programed to automatically seek out data and scrap it into SQL or equivalent. It just needs to know its path, and when to check for an update.

    I personally host an automated game, which logs into a daily updated website, and downloads the data from a tournament and calculates my players hypothetical scores based on real world data. A project like this is the same technology. Think of something like a fantasy baseball managers league with hundreds of real players.

    In this case, automating a script to seek out the daily argo data or for that matter any weather station and adding it to an ongoing database of records for that machine/location should be fairly easy. It will be slow in the beginning, but once we tune the server this will become easier and easier to add resolution to the big picture on global temps.

    What will be a pain in the wazzo is if we need to individualize the land scraping process for weather stations verses being able to grab them from some form of automated daily scraping. Does anyone know of a location that allows automated raw access to daily “official” weather stations besides the ASOS stuff?

    automating ARGO, plus ASOS would be a start, but we also need the historical land stations that are automated. This would also allow us to track the global changes in a raw format going forward.

    First we need to get the raw US historical records into SQL, at the same time including individual stations from national level weather offices, besides the ARGO stuff.

    I personally believe we can automate most of the weather record retrieval process, so that our auditors are second and third checking the work of the automated process that uploads the raw records. The data can be automated, its just a matter of deciding to do it.

    I believe Willis is handling this project, when he is not being attacked by the “dismal” science.

    Jack

  140. Steve (Paris) says:

    “In the same way a nation must be supposed to lose account of the time when it first settled in a land that was changing from a marshy and watery state and becoming dry. Here, too, the change is gradual and lasts a long time and men do not remember who came first, or when, or what the land was like when they came. This has been the case with Egypt. Here it is obvious that the land is continually getting drier and that the whole country is a deposit of the river Nile. But because the neighbouring peoples settled in the land gradually as the marshes dried, the lapse of time has hidden the beginning of the process.”

    I don’t think Aristotle is among those ‘5,000’ scientists

    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.mb.txt

  141. Rhys Jaggar says:

    There’s a headline in the warmist rag The Independent on Sunday today with a headline saying (approximately): Climategate investigation confirms the science is true’.

    Who did the research to justify this article? Seth Borenstein of AP.

    Whilst we are well used to the UK establishment hiring a mafia henchman to sit in judgement of an organised crime trial, it is a shame that it is being carried out again in the arena of climate change.

    There are people worthy of evaluating the science from a position of considered neutrality. A global warming fanatic journalist is not that man.

    IMHO.

  142. Jason says:

    Mr. Borenstein is conflicted, but out here in the So Cal boonies, I inform you the Los Angeles Times must be the most deranged alarmist newspaper in North America. Today’s “opinion” page is one half photos of world spots supposedly showing glacier retreats, but not providing local temperture info. The times is the last outpost of the Kilimanjaro theory, which I thought all alarmists had dropped, but they keep at it. Just the other day they had a UCLA “institute” (read-grant macro-farm) apparatchik reasserted the Kilimanjaro claim within one of the times’ opinion pieces why good thinking people should not think about Climategate. The paper is literally a joke, but unlike NY or Chicago, there is no big competitor. The San Francisco papers, ironically, have a modicum of objectivity. I think the times reporters are all on the “consultant” side-employment, or are just robotic dolts.

  143. TheGoodLocust says:

    Michele (00:01:51) :

    “Yesterday, I saw Factcheck.org’s “fact” check of climategate and, basically, they said: There’s no problem with CRU emails. It was just misunderstanding…”

    But…but…it has “fact” in the name and so it must be true!

    Seriously though, factcheck gets things wrong quite often, often due to being overly PC, but morons think they are somehow infallible and not subject to human biases.

  144. M. Simon says:

    My e-mail is now correct. I hope I didn’t annoy the moderator. OTOH Anthony has had my correct e-mail for quite some time. And it is on the sidebar of my blog.

  145. TheGoodLocust says:

    Jeff B. (05:13:42) :

    “For those who have been asleep at the wheel, this biased “journalism” isn’t just restricted to climate science. PR Cheerleaders like Borenstein looked the other way when it came to scrutiny of candidate Obama, and that’s how he got elected.”

    Very true, people would be amazed about some of the well documented things in Obama’s past, and, like in climate change, he has his own cliques to manufacture the truth for him on wikipedia and in other”authorities.”

  146. Michael says:

    What if an Internet tool could be created to break the barrier between divided Internet blogs talking about the same subject such as that of climate? That day has arrived.
    Details here;
    Tool to Break the Divide of the Left Right Paradigm.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/118836

    I sent this to Alex Jones to see what he thinks.

  147. Toto says:

    Now, I’m going to bring to your attention, this entry from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

    Brilliant! and the AP statement of values is not too shabby either. I wonder when the last time anybody at AP read it? or enforced it?

    I wonder what AP’s response will be? Ignore it, attack WUWT, have Seth investigate himself, spin it, say everyone else is doing it too, say some things are more important than ethics? Fire Seth, apologize to readers, redo the ClimateGate story, see who else is corrupt?

  148. Michael says:

    “Back2Bat (11:24:08) : wrote

    _Jim (10:00:34) :

    {snip}

    “Conspiracy theories are the tool of the weak-minded.”

    Perhaps, I would not know.

    Gee Jimmy, you are great at casting me as a straw man. As far as conspiracies go, I have no problem with them else we are dealing with thought and speech “crimes”.

    Let folks conspire. I conspire to bring down central banking.”

    I really like this Back2Bat guy. Where do I know you from, Mish, Calculated Risk?

    A also love learning about good actual proven conspiracies such as Watergate and Climategate.

  149. Jonathan says:

    Michael (08:26:11)

    Professor Mark Maslin is the Executive Director of Carbon Auditors Ltd/Inc. and science advisor to the Global Cool Foundation and Carbon Sense Ltd.

    Carbon Auditors Ltd/Inc

    http://carbonauditors.com/

    “Our goal is to stimulate trade in land-based carbon storage and sequestration, so that project developers and countries can trade land carbon with confidence and security. We were incorporated in February 2008.”

    So no conflict of interest there?

  150. M. Simon says:

    “Conspiracy theories are the tool of the weak-minded.”

    How true. But what about conspiracy facts?

  151. Ken Hall says:

    “” And why on Earth do you think 192 governments are represented in Copenhagen right now? A scam?””
    ————————

    Well there are trillions of dollars worth of policies and grants and wealth to be transferred. They are all fighting for their place at the trough!

  152. Vincent says:

    Smokey (11:27:24) :

    “Now Mark Maslin is saying it’s 5000 scientists.”

    Mark has made a big mistake. It’s one thing to distract with talk about melting glaciers and icebergs, but he has actually made a simple factual error – by 2 orders of magnitude. The number of contributors to the important chapter 9 are about 50. When I get some time, I’m going to go through the AR4 and see where these other 4,950 are – or even if they exist.

  153. jh says:

    The world must take action on climate change at Copenhagen even if the science is not correct, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister has suggested.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html

  154. David Gladstone says:

    Great piece, Anthony! I’ve reamed him out as well. He needs to be identified as a Global Warming activist and removed from AP.

  155. M. Simon says:

    This means no third parties, no appeal to lauP noR as a ’savior’…

    I thought lauP noR was a member of a major political party.

  156. Michael says:

    Ap and Reuters who disseminate all the news talking points to to the privately owned friends networks all over the world are owned by the Rothschild’s!

  157. Jorgen F. says:

    Svensmark has just collapsed on national Danish television in a live debate with Lomborg and politicians.

    very scary … :-(

  158. Michael says:

    “One of the several scandalous revelations of the Climategate e-mails is that this claim of consensus is a LIE. Never mind the skeptics: It turns out many of the scientists in the CRU inner circle had doubts and disagreements about their data, methodology and conclusions, and often bickered with one another about defects in their project.”

    What Climategate Really Tells Us

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/what_climategate_really_tells_us_pHSBh1uNXagcp4ygKUsXSJ

  159. paullm says:

    CNN, 3:39 pm EST, Steve Moore on “Climate Change”

  160. Michael says:

    “According to the Mail, the Russian government has made a veiled threat to disclose certain details, that they claim could be embarrassing to some person or persons unknown outside of Russia, if allegations of direct Russian involvement in stealing the archive do not cease.”

    Daily Mail does first comprehensive investigation of Climategate

    http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d13-Daily-Mail-does-first-comprehensive-investigation-of-Climategate

  161. Jorgen F. says:

    …apparently Svensmark has a pacemaker that jump started during the debate. He should be well, but on his way to hospital.

  162. Michael says:

    “Is it just me, or are the rest of you also bored with global warming? Really, I’m tired of being blamed, almost daily and by way of an unconfirmed theory, for the changing condition of the earth.”

    Global Boring
    Pissing in the Wind

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/lifestyle/article226910.ece

  163. AdderW says:

    Archbishop of Canterbury says fear hinders success of climate change

    Rowan Williams tells Copenhagen service corporations and governments are afraid to make choices to bring real change

    It is almost official now, Climate Scientology is a religion !

  164. WakeUpMaggy says:

    Svensmark is DEAD? Wiki lists today as his death….

  165. WakeUpMaggy says:

    sorry, looks like a malicious info war at wiki over Svensmark, maybe

  166. AdderW says:

    @ WakeUpMaggy

    No, Svensmark is not dead !

    I saw the live climate debate on danish tv and his pacemaker malfunctioned somehow. During a climate debate his heartrate dropped below a certain level and his pacemaker shocked him tvice to get the heart going again.

    But for some reason the pacemaker over did it. It looked like he got an electric shock.

    He was taken to hospital and they report that he is stable.

  167. Bulldust says:

    In Australia the ABC (Aussie version) is reporting that the Aussies have been accused of cooking the books on CO2 emissions… it is much worse than we thought:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/14/2770326.htm

    Another blow in the media to the cap and trade (ETS) concept. Having said that, to the average Aussie that article is TL:DNR.

  168. Pete says:

    Journalism is so tainted in my eyes these days. They’re little foot soldiers of disinformation, these writers.

    This gets my vote for quote of the week!

  169. Sparky says:

    _Jim (10:00:34) :

    …At this rate the ‘NWO’ will find you (us?) an easy mark.

    … This means no third parties, no appeal to lauP noR as a ’savior’;

    – and turn off Alex Jones (‘Jack Blood’ et al), Joyce Riley and ‘The Power Hour’. They do nothing but cause you to burn energy and resources uselessly and will figuratively ’suck your brains out’.

    “Conspiracy theories are the tool of the weak-minded.”

    …Moderators, an appeal to leniency in snipping this post, pls….

    Jim, who let you out over at LGF, trolling here and bashing trolls there, your ‘Ron Paul ‘ gave it away NodroG. Whats your nick bud. Now it all makes sense.
    That appeal to moderator leniency just cracks me up!! Let the big boys take the lead here, listen and learn.

  170. Bill P says:

    Denver Post also gave Borenstein’s AP article prominence next to its coverage of the Copenhagen business.

    Newspapers are in a fight for survival as more and more content goes online. Whether that transistion can benefit AP is a big question for them, and they are fighting it out now. One article about this:

    AP’s Curley Has Fightin’ Words For Google
    Dirk Smillie, 04.30.09, 06:35 PM EDT
    Associated Press Chief Tom Curley threatens a news blackout. Will Google flinch?

    The AP, a 163-year-old cooperative owned by news organizations, won’t discuss its talks with Google, but plans to create landing pages and Web-based “news maps” directing users to original AP stories (and away from secondary sources who post material “borrowed” from the AP). To do this, the AP needs Google’s help. Most likely that means Google creating search protocols similar to those created from the licensing deal the AP inked with Google in 2006.

    Since that deal was struck, Google has paid the AP undisclosed fees to carry AP content on the Google News section of the site. Search rankings on Google News give priority to recognizable news brands like the AP. But Google applies no such algorithmic discretion to general searches. The broader search rankings spread AP content out across the Web, says Curley, encouraging misappropriation by other sites. Curley wants Google to “protect content from unauthorized use and pay us for the longtail.” By “longtail,” Curley refers to the thousands of small sites that collectively drive vast herds of traffic using AP content.

    More here:

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/30/associated-press-google-business-media-apee.html

  171. Navy Bob says:

    (Posted a variant of this on Climate Audit for about 30 seconds, and then Steve disappeared it. Not even a snip.)

    [glad to oblige - snip]

  172. John F. Hultquist says:

    Anthony, this is a good report with an appropriate conclusion. I am thankful this stuff is having a bright light shined on it.

    I found this comment from above suited by sentiment:
    ——————————
    Michele (00:01:51) :
    “Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?”

    I think I wanna puke!!
    —————————–

  173. _Jim says:


    Michael (12:00:53) :

    I sent this to Alex Jones to see what he thinks.

    Alex – ‘Black Helicopter’, ‘Y2K Internment camp’ and ‘fight the new world order’ (HOW exactly?) Alex?

    No thanks.

    The expression ‘lie down with dogs and get flees‘ comes to mind …

    Alex exemplifies the ‘a stopped clock is right twice a day’ syndrome.

    He has simply ‘renewed’ himself 10 years later after ‘flopping’ with his DIRE Year 2000 predictions. His last big gig was with the 9-11 Truthers as in “The-Govt-Did-It” (9-11) crowd (or has everyone forgotten … maybe you also believe that?).

    Do you know any of the background of this guy? (… and you guys, e.g. Michael, hold yourselves UP as being the purveyors of seeking the truth, the paragons of routing out govt corruption, of ‘fighting the NWO’ and all that?)

    Looks the the yonger generation is still as gullible as ever; Say, have you or the B2Bat guy looked into what Lyndon H. LaRouche is ‘peddling’? You might just be intrigued …
    .
    .
    Sorry mods, I feel compelled to do it. Snip if you must.

  174. Dollar Wise says:

    Loved the reprint of “The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles”.

    Right.

    Apparently Seth has Dynamic Values and Dynamic Principles. Dynamic as in: changing per situation.

    Possibly the reprint of News Values and Principles has an appendix? Surely. Appendix 4F: “Fitting a Square Peg in a Round Hole” .

  175. Michael says:

    I made this more readable in case you missed it.

    What if an Internet tool could be created to break the barrier between divided Internet blogs talking about the same subject such as that of climate? That day has arrived.
    Details here;
    Tool to Break the Divide of the Left Right Paradigm.

    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/118836

    I sent this to Alex Jones to see what he thinks.

  176. Douglas Field says:

    It seems that the ‘soup is thickening’ Jim Salinger mention here as part of the ‘cabal’ was responsible for ‘improving’ New Zealand’s climate when he worked for NIWA (N.Z) He was recently fired for an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with the press.

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
    Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:23:09 -0600
    Cc: Grant Foster , p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “J. Salinger” , j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt , James Annan
    Hi all
    Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning
    experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and
    reviewers need to to also be taken to task here. I agree with Mike Mann that a couple of
    other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper. Making sure that the important
    relationships and role of ENSO on interannual variability of global temperatures should
    also be pointed out with some select references (as in recent emails and the refs
    therein). In terms of the paper, I recommend consolidating the figures to keep them fewer
    in number if this is a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 , and 6 with 7. Make sure the plots
    of spectra have period prominently displayed as well as frequency and maybe even highlight
    with stipple some bands like >10 years. Glad to sign on: I would need an acknowledgment
    that NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
    Regards
    Kevin

  177. photon without a Higgs says:

    M White (03:50:21) :

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

    ‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’

    ———————————————

    I wonder if they would release them to Anthony or Steve M

  178. Erik Anderson says:

    I’m spooked. Drudge is running this headline: “Shock Video: Skeptical scientist has apparent heart attack during live UN climate debate…”

    It looks like Henrik Svensmark who was stricken. :…-(

  179. Erik Anderson says:

    Follow up:

    “Copendenier Henrik Svensmark collapses on Danish TV” (jerks)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/copendenier-henrik-svensm_b_390413.html

  180. photon without a Higgs says:

    Jorgen F. (12:33:55) :

    Svensmark has just collapsed on national Danish television in a live debate with Lomborg and politicians.

    very scary … :-(

    —————

    is there video? is there a reason yet given why?

  181. photon without a Higgs says:

    Michael (12:41:11) :

    “According to the Mail, the Russian government has made a veiled threat to disclose certain details, that they claim could be embarrassing to some person or persons unknown outside of Russia, if allegations of direct Russian involvement in stealing the archive do not cease.”

    ———————————————————-

    oh baby let it happen!!!!!!

  182. photon without a Higgs says:

    Jorgen F. (12:47:03) :

    …apparently Svensmark has a pacemaker that jump started during the debate. He should be well, but on his way to hospital.

    I see you had given the reason.

    He seems young for a pacemaker.

  183. JDN says:

    Re: AP dishonesty: I’ve stopped reading CNN’s website. At this point, everything from the MSM seems like soviet-style propaganda. The idea that the AP would ditch an associate because he did what they asked (better than anyone else) is kind of funny. You’re asking the people who are an integral part of the propaganda machine to throw one of their own under a bus so they can keep doing it. If they’re going to be a propaganda machine, shouldn’t they be our propaganda machine? Who owns them?

  184. Dr Mo says:

    I’ve written to AP already, and suggest that everyone who agrees with Anthony do the same!

  185. Michael says:

    It is amazing how all the critters come out of the woodwork to try to make us stop thinking for ourselves, not naming any names. The MSM are in full defense mode of their masters and their masters vision of the world. We win, they lose, get a life.

  186. Roger Knights says:

    @ Kevin Kilty & Manfred: Thanks.

    @ Moderator: I thought made a post on Borenstein earlier than my two here, but I can’t find it. Did it get lost somehow? (I unfortunately failed to keep a backup copy.) It was fairly short, just mentioning that I didn’t think that SB’s chumminess with the Team was too terrible and that journalists would consider that he was merely “cultivating his sources,” and that his mentioning his being mentioned inthe e-mails at the end of his article was adequate to allow him to contribute to the story. (There was one other point on which I thought that criticism was unwarranted, but I’ve forgotten it.)

    WWS: “Goliath has been felled by an army of Davids.”

    My analogy is that the first domino has fallen, but there are many more to go.

  187. Lord Taylor says:

    AP = Alarmist Propaganda.

  188. Sean Peake says:

    Re: Seth & AP. He and they are not worth it.

  189. Ray Donahe says:

    Vincent, As I recall the three IPCC working Groups are, basically WG1 Science, WG2 Impact and WG3 Mitigation. The last two have nothing to do with formulating the science, only responding to WG1’s output. These two groups soak up 1900 of the 2500 scientists of the IPCC. The remaing 600 odd are in the WG1. Hence, no “2500” involved in the actual “projections”. About 62 commented on Chapter 9 but most were biased according to what I found on google. About 7 were impartial. Interesting to note that the involved number has doubled.

  190. Bill DiPuccio says:

    The AP has just published an investigation into the Climategate emails: “AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty” (Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter, and Malcolm Ritter).

    My critical response can be found on ICECAP: “AP Analysis Overlooks Scientific Implications of Climategate”

    The article was slanted by significant omissions.

  191. Fred says:

    He’s hardly too young for a pacemaker……heart problems can strike anyone at any age. After 40 the odds go way up for a man…

  192. Larry Geiger says:

    I have dropped several AP notes in the “Tips & Notes to WUWT” thread. My paper, “The Florida Today” prints an AP Climate article almost every day and has for the past 3 or 4 weeks. I just get tired of it. Florida Today, and Al Neuharth (and some other history I’m not familiar with) had something to do with starting Gannett and USA Today. I don’t get USA Today but it would be interesting whether they to have been sticking these AP articles in every day?

  193. jorgekafkazar says:

    Smokey: “…If the AP had an ethics policy actually in force, it would have taken immediate action against Borenstein when it became apparent from the leaked emails that he was acting as Mann’s personal propagandist in private, but acting as an just another columnist in public.

    “Since the AP took no disciplinary action against Borenstein for his glaring ethics violation, it means the AP condones Borenstein’s secret strategizing over how to best sell AGW to the public.”

    Since AP has been revealed as standing for “All Propaganda,” we must assume that their ethics policy is simply that, another piece of propaganda.

  194. hugh says:

    The Irish are starting to question the veracity of the doomsdayers.
    Recently David Bellamy was interviewed on Irish TV Late Show :

    and now this:

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/tide-is-turning-on-climate-change-1973273.html

  195. savethesharks says:

    OUTRAGE!

    Way to go after ‘em, Anthony.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  196. Jeffrey Schrembs says:

    Biased.
    Seth Borenstein is yet another example of a BIASED Liberal Extremist Press.
    They don’t “search” for the truth. They “pick and choose” their sources and then they spew it as…fact.
    If God wants the Earth to warm…then it will.
    This “chatter” is nothing but “intelectual distractions” between those who like to hear themselves talk. PATHETIC!
    Oh, yes I did say the word GOD for in this day and age (sadly) far too many of those “in power” never bring up God or give thanks to God in print or on TV or on the Radio. Everything comes from God and if we, as a Country, had the “press” put 1/2 of their efforts into adhereing and respecting God then this World would be a better place.
    During the interim we are left with Seth Borenstein and his “close knit group of fellow Liberal Extremists” all crying “the sky is falling”. Pathetic.
    Jefff Schrembs, American Citizen

  197. Bill Parsons says:

    “Grant et al.” Sheesh!

  198. E.M.Smith says:

    Jason (11:37:50) : The times is the last outpost of the Kilimanjaro theory, which I thought all alarmists had dropped, but they keep at it.

    FWIW, the “base” (I can’t bring myself to call it “raw”, and “base” seems so much more accurate… ) GHCN data shows the area surrounding Kilimanjaro is cooling, if only a little:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/ncdc-ghcn-africa-by-altitude/

    There is also the interesting pattern that Egypt started history with the thermometers at low altitudes near the water, now they have moved inland to be closer to the Sahara Desert…

    Maybe we can send Seth to survey the African thermometers out in the Sahara… they ARE warming, just not the way he thinks…

  199. Jeffrey Schrembs says:

    Kudos to the author of this article for allowing the “light of the truth” to pierce the darkness of untruths, collusion, and deceit.
    Global Warming has been scaring our children, draining our resources, and enriching those who already had power and money…like Al Gore.
    Everyone has a duty to do as little “harm” to this Earth as possible and to leave the waters, and air, clean for our children…and theirs. But, doing so should be a sense of pride and NOT to leave the efforts into the hands of those who SAY they are “offsetting carbon” and/or “planting a tree in Africa”.
    It is a shame that so much attention and effort has been put into this “Emperors New Clothes” environmental heist. These EXTREMISTS will never stop crying, and stopping, America from using the resources that are abundant such as coal, natural gas, and even oil (yes I said oil). They won’t even “allow” Nuclear Power OR exploration for oil off of our coast lines.
    Obama was “caught on tape” saying that as President he would not “forbid” Nuclear or Oil Companys from harnessing our natural resources but he would ensure that Laws were passed so that it would (to use his words) “bankrupt” those wanting to do so. PATHETIC.
    America was founded with the understanding that Politicans would NOT be in Congress, or hold the Presidency, for monetary gain. They were paid little , or nothing, and they served in ADDITION to being businessmen/farmers/printers/etc. Compare that with today’s SERIAL and Multi-term Politicians who enrich themselves (see Charlie Rangel for an example) and/or their family members directly (see Nancy Pelosi for an example) all at the American Citizens expense.
    Please keep these articles coming and perhaps the truth will STERLIZE the filth of all of these lies…and their deceitful motives.
    Nuff said.
    Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy New Years to all.
    May God bless this great Nation (USA) and all of the Worlds children and those yet to be born.
    Jeffrey Schembs, American Citizen

  200. Ken says:

    You sir are the true reporter. What you have done is what reporters used to do. Excellent article.

  201. Laura says:

    Great thread. Thanks for covering this Watts :)

  202. Tom L. says:

    Perhaps off subject, but public awareness of Climategate must be growing: I was surprised to see a Climategate story appear in the “top stories” page of Google News tonight. More interesting is the story was from the Kansas City Star and entitled, “Climategate: Who are the ‘deniers’ now?” by Thomas McClanahan. Haven’t there been some comments here that Google appeared to be “suppressing” Climategate searches and articles? If so, that has either been overwhelmed or turned off if it was in place. Good news. Climategate details must be spread far and wide daily.

  203. Kevin says:

    Google censorship question – Al Gore’s past affiliation with Google and the millions he has made from their start-up phase may have something to do with it.

    http://www.precursorblog.com/node/409

    “The still unanswered question is how many tens of millions of dollars has Mr. Gore made from his boatload of Google options/warrants granted to him as “Senior Advisor” to Google?”
    And where are the disclosures in the book that most all of Mr. Gore’s multi-ten million dollar net worth is in Google shares — constituting a huge undisclosed conflict of interest on the issue of net neutrality. “

  204. Merovign says:

    M. Simon (11:21:08) :

    Sorry for the imprecision, I used “Media outlets” as shorthand for the “main bloc” of the MSM that self-identifies as on that “cartain side,” i.e. NYT, LAT, MSNBC, ABC, etc.

    Obviously there’s actual diversity of ideas in the blogosphere.

    Also, WRT Google’s foibles: could it be that they’re trying to “hide the incline” of skepticism?

  205. Michele says:

    Did someone already post this? If not, words of wisdom from Environmental Phd David Bellamy. He was banned after challenging the modern Environmental orthodoxy.

    http://tinyurl.com/dbshtj

  206. Indiana Bones says:

    …Melville Stone, the great general manager of the AP. But he went on to say that “the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world’s happenings … ethical in the highest degree.”

    He wrote those words in 1914. They are true today. AP STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

    AP has long been “in the tank” for this issue. And others. So much so they recall the warning of a real investigative reporter Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Jack Anderson:

    “We have [today] spin doctors in Washington whose job it is to lie to us. They are professional liars. And the way they lie is the most effective way. People, what they do is counterfeit the truth. They counterfeit the truth… The spin doctors that you read about in Washington are counterfeiting the truth, and they make it so much like the real thing that you are deceived.”
    1999 speech, University Utah

    Seth could not carry Anderson’s spittoon.

  207. Astralis says:

    These “environmental” writers that the AP hires are straight out of the global warming alarmism school and know nothing else besides alarmism. The AP could care less what they write because they have no integrity whatsoever and many editors just republish whatever they send them because they don’t understand what’s happening. Activist reporters such as Seth Borenstein were literally made for global warming activism.

  208. Roger Knights says:

    If any journalist would like to quote or reprint my posts on Borenstein (or any of my posts anywhere), feel free.

  209. Neo says:

    There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”

    .. and here underlies the real problem with “Climate Science” as shown by the CRU e-mails.

  210. OceanTwo says:

    Hmm. Interesting.

    Last week, I’d had the last straw with my local paper. The most significant issues I had was with the increasing trend to use AP articles, and the fact that AP articles, on the whole, are extremely biased and/or filtered (i.e. a lie by error of omission).

    It seems the worst of it has occurred over the past 8 months or so.

    Many articles had no names associated with them (simply tagged as AP). When one can hide – as we all do to some extent, particularly on the internet – there is little reason for scruples, dedication, integrity or any of the whole slew of phrases one would believe to be associated with reporting.

  211. Tres says:

    “When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.”

    While many other points in your post are valid, this one is not. In fact, it’s wildly offbase.

    Do you really think journalists go around — or should go around — addressing every source as Mr. or Ms. Whatever? Seriously? Is that really how you envision reporting taking place? What — that it’s some sort of buttoned-down endeavor, conducted by stiff professionals in suits, speaking in formal upper-crust dialects?

    Seriously?

    It’s not. It is, rather, a very scrappy, seat-of-the-pants sort of work stained with coffee and adrenaline and self-deprecating humor. It’s about coaxing information out of other human beings, and building long-term trust.

    There’s a lot of stuff wrong with the AP, and in particular with the cited piece. But the informality displayed here certainly isn’t part of it.

  212. apcritic says:

    sborenstein@ap.org is his email, info@ap.org is his boss. email away

  213. Ed Darrell says:

    Anthony, this is scurrilous. You’re complaining that Borenstein knows too much about the topic, that he strove to be fair.

    It’s good reporting. Stop shooting at the messenger and publish your contrary data, if you have any.

  214. Astralis says:

    It’s not reporting when your goal is to create an idea that man-made global warming is true. Instead of writing an article about Marc Morano hyping the article or contacting the scientist of the article that wrote the article against man-made global warming, Seth simply went to his sources to write a piece about how man-made global warming is true to counter Morano’s hype.

    This is akin to a journalist writing about Obama’s economic and foreign policy by going to the GOP for quotes about how capitalism feeds the world (except that is true).

  215. George E. Smith says:

    Well Borenstein is getting to be as Boring as Gorenstein.

    The San Jose Mercury News printed that silly AP article today.

    Same onld mantra; the e-mails wers stolen; they’re just some chaps letting off steam; the e-mails don’t change the data on global warming. Well of course not, the CRU can do that quite well by themselves, and GISS evidently does something similar.
    The computer codes show what these goons have in their heads reserving space for brains; if they ever make it to Oz.
    Of course since the original raw data has been erased (so the say), there’s no way to prove exactly which of those commented out code snippets are actually used to generate published output.

    But since they are just code writers letting off steam; I suggest that CRU go through all of their codes, and every such instance of a code snippet that could be used, if uncommented out, to produce some false data manipulation, be erased permanently from the code, and from all backups of the code wherever they may be; and make any such use of the CRU’s data processing equipment be automatic grounds for instant dismissal; and permanent banishment from publication in peer reviewed jouranls on ANY branch of science.

    Yes Seth; you are a bore; and your credibility has long since gone down the toilet.
    Actually you and Andy Revkin, would make a great duet on America’s got talent.

  216. SteveSadlov says:

    How’s that lawsuit against GISS progressing? I think we need to see some discovery over here on this side of the pond!

  217. xanthippa says:

    A little over a year ago, a 13-year-old child named Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was gang-raped. She went to her local authorities, unaware that they were taken over by extreme islamists, and ‘demanded justice’.

    Her new ‘local authorities’ praised her for her demand for justice – and, in accordance with Sharia, promptly stoned her to death for ‘having had sex with men she was not married to’. In the process, she was dug up 3 times to see if she was dead yet – then, put back in and stoned some more….

    Most of the people present tried to storm the execution and free her – so the authorities fired into them … and killed another child!

    AP was the only ‘news agency’ with a reporter on the ground. How did they report this?

    “A woman was stoned for adultery.”

    AP has NOT been a reliable source of anything for quite a while!!!

  218. Yankee Rose says:

    Wait did I miss something? Seth Borenstein’s impartiality is being questioned because he used the word “whatchya” in an email? Borenstein is a science writer, of course he’s going to write to scientists. Would you expect him to write something more like “hey punks I saw this article, give me your thoughts on it or f*ck off?”

  219. Astralis says:

    Yankee, you are mistaken. You believe that Borenstein approaches all scientists for different view points when objectively writing about global warming. The problem is Borenstein begins with the premise that everyone is wrong besides the APGW scientists that he uses as his main source and he doesn’t question their beliefs. Now that those scientists are caught up in a scandal of lies, Borenstein is finding himself in the same web he helped to weave.

  220. Ed Darrell says:

    Astralis, show us the e-mails he sent to the authors of the article, please. Let’s see how he’s biased.

  221. Roger Knights says:

    Here’s a link to a fairly long recent article criticizing Borenstein:

    http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/seth-borenstein-ap-has-a-science-writer-problems/

  222. Astralis says:

    Ed, the email that we have of his is published in the OP. His reliance on these “experts” is scary and he writes only to support his notions of man-made global warming. His scientists are caught in a web of lies because they only wanted to support the position of man-made global warming despite the science and used RealClimate.org as their personal playground to distribute misinformation just as it’s clear that they use Seth, and vice versa, to distribute misinformation into the mainstream media.

  223. Bill Parsons says:

    CA posted a useful video debate with Lindzen and Emanuel. Comments there by MIT scientists, including Lindzen, are interesting, and particularly relevant to this discussion are comments by social scientists on the panel, and questions by students and educators in the audience, about the ethical role of scientists in the face of Climategate, how science should be taught in institutions, and how science information should be dispersed to the public.

    A key question for mainstream media is what’s the role of science writers?

    http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

  224. Ed Darrell says:

    Astralis:

    Ed, the email that we have of his is published in the OP. His reliance on these “experts” is scary and he writes only to support his notions of man-made global warming. His scientists are caught in a web of lies because they only wanted to support the position of man-made global warming despite the science and used RealClimate.org as their personal playground to distribute misinformation just as it’s clear that they use Seth, and vice versa, to distribute misinformation into the mainstream media.

    But you don’t have any of the emails he sent to Anthony Watts, nor to any expert from the other side. It’s rather clear he corresponds with people who deny human-causation, but you don’t have those emails. In other words, you admit you have less than half the story. “His scientists” include those who criticize warming and causation.

    It’s from this one message of yours that you’ll leap to a conclusion without bothering to wonder whether you’ve got all the relevant facts. Do you make such unwarranted leaps in your science conclusions as well? Where’s the evidence contrary?

    If you do a search for Borenstein’s name in news venues, you’ll discover a wide variety of stories critical of warming science. If you do a search for venues that cover science, you’ll find a few dozen examples of people criticizing Borenstein for favoring your side. (Go to Seed’s collection of bloggers and search, for example.) Borenstein takes hits from all angles, a general indication that the guy isn’t biased to one or the other.

  225. Smokey says:

    The guy isn’t biased to one or the other???

    Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

    I don’t have to do a search of anything to know when someone is trying to sell me a pig in a poke. I can read. Anyone working for the Ass. Press had best toe their line, or they won’t be working there for long.

    That’s the central problem in current mainstream journalism: writers either tilt the way the editor in chief wants, or they MoveOn. The formerly excellent Economist’s flogging of AGW in nearly every issue is a typical example. The Ass. Press is much worse. And Reuters is the New Scientist of news portals.

    No wonder Old Media hates and fears the internet. They’re being bypassed. If it weren’t for the internet, who would know about the leaked emails and code? People want the truth, and on line they can find the story that’s not being told by lockstep newspapers spoon feeding readers their daily talking points.

  226. Roger Knights says:

    “If you do a search for venues that cover science, you’ll find a few dozen examples of people criticizing Borenstein for favoring your side.”

    That only shows that he can’t be as openly alarmist under the AP masthead as his extravagant alarmist buddies on the sidelines would like. It doesn’t mean that he’s not biased.

    “(Go to Seed’s collection of bloggers and search, for example.)”

    A link would be helpful. There’s no need to format it on this site — just plonk it down.

  227. Ed Darrell says:

    Sure, Smokey. The Reagan- and Palin-loving Associated Press tilts to the left. Along with John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan. And Attila the Hun.

    In a less absurd note, Roger Knights, take a look at Borenstein’s work, seriously. He’s no great advocate of either side.

    See here, and the Seed stuff here.

  228. Roger Knights says:

    @ Ed Darrell:

    I’ve opened the Seed stuff in a new tab and will go through it later. Here’s my report on what I found at “see here”:

    Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub (neat name — I re-posted my WUWT critique of SB there) contains no criticism of Borenstein, but contains a link to three other sites. I searched all sites for “Borenstein.”

    1. Stoat contains criticisms, mostly in the comments, of the Borenstein AP article on asking statisticians whether a cooling trend existed in the global temperature data. But these are mostly technical. I only skimmed them, but I don’t see any pounding of SB for being sympathetic to deniers.

    Incidentally, if I can find it, I’ll post my comment criticizing that statistical article of SB’s.

    2. Mooney’s Intersection contains criticism of SB’s reporting on comet Lulin. Nothing else. (Maybe there was a tangential criticism in the comments?)

    3. Island of Doubt contains 9 threads mentioning SB. One is a duplicate and one is on a non-climate matter. Of the remaining seven, 3 are neutral on SB (mere mentions) and 4 are favorable. For instance:

    “There’s still the NY Times’ Andy Revkin, and the AP’s Seth Borenstein, but other than that, it’s slim pickings among what’s left of the mainstream media.”

    “The AP’s Seth Borenstein does an admirable job,”

  229. Roger Knights says:

    Here’s my post, plus a couple of follow-up posts.

    Let’s parse that AP article:

    “The statisticians, reviewing two sets of temperature data, found no trend of falling temperatures over time.

    Strawman. 2009 is warmer than 1979 and 1880. But the period between those two start points is not what skeptics have in mind by “over time.” They are referring to the most recent trend.

    “And U.S. government figures show that the decade that ends in December will be the warmest in 130 years of record-keeping.”

    Another technically correct pseudo-refutation. Since the first half of that period preceded heavy manmade CO2, and therefore warmed from another cause, it indicates there’s a non-anthropogenic component to the long-term warming trend—a component that could still be active. (I.e., the rebound from the LIA.)

    “Global warming skeptics are basing their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998.”

    Another strawman. Most skeptics (here on WUWT, anyway) don’t choose 1998 as their starting point. Instead, they claim it’s been cooling during the present century, or since 2002, or 2004.

    “They say that since then, temperatures have fallen — thus, a cooling trend. But it’s not that simple.”

    A red herring (diversion). It IS that simple, because a short-term flattening and cooling trend falsifies the IPCC’s prediction for this decade, casting doubt on its models’ reliability; because it casts doubt on the implacability (and the urgency of the threat) of CO2’s alleged “forcing”; and because the PDO has flattened and turned negative at about the same time, which suggests that the PDO is the climate “forcer,” not CO2.

    **********

    “when I asked him [Borenstein] why he felt it necessary to *make* news, and then report it, he answered that he was simply fact-checking against recent “internet memes””

    The primary “meme” here on WUWT and CA has been that the globe has been cooling slightly for the past five years or so. Borenstein merely knocked down a strawman (a caricatured version of an opponent’s argument) by pointing out that the globe has not been cooling since 1880 and 1979. The fact that this obvious dissembling hasn’t been caught demonstrates the CAWGers lack of critical thought.
    *********

    If a patient has a fever and the fever “breaks,” that breakage can’t be waved aside with the diversionary argument that the temperature decline hasn’t lasted long enough to be a long-term trend. No one is claiming it is a long-term trend –- just that the fever (most likely PDO-driven) has broken.

Comments are closed.