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 Borenstein

Associated Press Science Writer


The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,

Washington, DC



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.


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.


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



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.



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


450 W. 33rd St.

New York, NY 10001

Main Number


Paul Colford

Director of Media Relations

Jack Stokes

Manager of Media Relations


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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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.

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


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?


Wow! The snowball keep running…


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.


AP = Busted!!!

Leon Brozyna

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?”


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


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.
Manfred Kintop”

“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.”
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…
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:
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.
Sickened by Seth


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 ?


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.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram

Journalism today = corporate and government mouthpieces

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.


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


Well, I’ll tell you Mary
I’d much rather be
(fill in your own last line)


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.


The part about Tamino was particularly interesting.


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

Lindsay H

Big brother is watching
George Orwell Lives!!
Even his name was an alias for George Arthur Blair !!


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!

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.


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.


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

Roger Knights

“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.)


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

A Robertson

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


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

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?


Results 1 – 10 of about 25,200,000 for Climategate. (0.28 seconds)
Thats the google count now 🙁


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.


“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.


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.
The reporter has done a good job,I’m going to thank him.

M White

“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”

Arthur Glass

” 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….

Dr. Ross Taylor

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.

Arthur Glass

“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.

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?

M White

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.’


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.

Martin Brumby

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:-
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’
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!

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
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
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…

Doggy Geezer

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.


“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.


Luc Hansen (02:09:54) :
Money. Sharks circling over the smell of green in the water.

Peter Dare

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!


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.