BPSDB If you haven’t been following the CRU hack story, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a nice overview:
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light over the past two weeks. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate. Read the rest
Conclusion: There is no indication whatsoever of any problem with the CRU data. An independent study (by a molecular biologist it Italy, as it happens) came to the same conclusion using a somewhat different analysis. None of this should come as any surprise of course, since any serious errors would have been found and published already. Read the rest …
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Read the rest …
Anyone who’s familiar with Borenstein’s body of work on climate science for the news cooperative can be certain of two things. 1-That when the AP does a story on climate science, Borenstein’s name will likely be on it; and, 2-Whenever a Borenstein AP story and climate science meet, Seth will do his best to scare the bejeezus out of readers: there ain’t no happy ending.
A quick look at what this objective “reporter” has written–and the AP has distributed–since the CRU leaked emails surfaced. Readers can make their own judgment.
Recent AP articles by “Science” writer, Seth Borenstein, include:
* Review: Scientists’ e-mails don’t devalue climate theory Sun Dec 13, 2009
* AP verdict: Climate emails show science not faked, but not pretty either Sat Dec 12, 2009
* United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak Fri Dec 4, 2009
* Global warming may require higher dams, stilts Thu Dec 3, 2009
* Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails Wed Dec 2, 2009
* ‘A million small changes’ to better climate Fri Nov 27, 2009
* ‘We are in more trouble than we thought’ Monday Nov 23, 2009
Keep in mind these were all written after the ClimateGate emails were made public on November 19, 2009. One question upon perusing the above list: is Seth Borenstein responding as an objective reporter would?
In standard Denier fashion what is completely missing from the screed is any evidence that Borenstein is wrong or says anything that is not a fact. They are just playing the man, not the ball (ad hominem fallacy). As noted before: “Conspiracy theorists view logical argument as cheating.” To the Deniers, that he accepts the scientific realities based on verifiable facts rather than embracing the Denier Canon is all the proof required to determine that he is “biased.”
Josh Nelson (aka Enviroknow) is trying to stay on top of it all with SWIFTHACK (tip of the hat to Deltoid), a site dedicated to the CRU hack story. Good luck with that is all I can say; I am simply drowning in CRU links and it will be a while before I am able to clean them up.
are Coby’s picks; see the third on in particular 😉 Sadly it’s not going away either. For example, from Richard Littlemore at DesmogBlog we have
The Deniers have rustled up their own TV station, an offshoot of the right-wingy Corbett Report called ClimateGate TV. The site has everything you could possibly want in terms of hyperventilating and belligerent commentary about the emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The only thing missing is even the tiniest hint about who’s paying the the bills for the new “service.” Read the rest…
In an attempt to keep the all important myth of the “Whistleblower” alive the Deniers have posted:
The details of the files tell a story that FOIA2009.zip was compiled internally and most likely released by an internal source.
The contents of the zip file hold one top-level directory,
./FOIA. Inside that it is broken into two main directories,
./documentsis highly disorganized. MS Word documents, FORTRAN, IDL and other computer code, Adobe Acrobat PDF’s and data are sprinkled in the top directory and through several sub-directories. It’s the kind of thing that makes the co-workers disorganized desk look like the spit and polish of a boot camp floor. usw
Perhaps some of the Uber-geeks can debunk this one, because it’s definitely not in my competence to do so.
“Over the 20th century, ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic main development region warmed during peak hurricane season, with the most pronounced warming occurring over the last four decades.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.