INTERVIEW-Climate science untarnished by hacked emails-IPCC
The IPCC says ClimateGate doesn’t change anything. (Well Shock Me! Really?)
Source: Reuters
Imagine if a politician called “Jones” had been caught emailing a colleague saying “Delete all those files. Don’t tell anyone about that off-shore tax haven I have. Burn those receipts, ask Keith to burn his too and I’ll let Casper know. By the way, I’ve used that accounting trick Mike talked about to hide the money.”
Let Reuter-wash swing into gear and the “news” article would blandly say Jones’ emails were “seized upon by his opponents, showing he made snide comments, and talked about ways to present his accounts in the most favourable light”. In other words, Reuters wouldn’t mention that he’s been caught red-handed and implicated as a colluding fraud who squandered funds and mislead the public. What’s really newsworthy is that he’s been exposed being not-very-nice, and glossing up his reports. Would we sack those journalists? We couldn’t. But we could cancel our subscriptions and just go searching blogs for the real news.
Here’s the actual Reuter-wash:
“The e-mails hacked from Britain’s University of East Anglia last week showed scientists made snide comments about climate sceptics, and revealed exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming argument look convincing.”
Gerard Wynn, the Reuters “journalist” did mention the word “collude” but only as an accusation made by opponents about data that might have weakened an otherwise very strong, well backed, and over analysed case.
“Climate change sceptics have seized on a series of e-mails written by specialists in the field, accusing them of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.”
The Reuter-wash words of choice are “accusing” and “might have”. These qualifiers can take the sting out of any sentence.
Reuters gives plenty of space for the IPCC’s view of how well researched their material is:
“The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments,” he added in a written statement to Reuters.
“There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.” (My italics)
And of course, there’s no mention of how East Anglia scientists work hard to make sure that skeptics can’t pass that peer reviewed hurdle.
“This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.”
Below are the detailed questions from the open-minded and well informed journalist who searches for the possibility that the IPCC might not be the Global God of perfect committees:
Reuters IPCC Question-list
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
That’s right. The investigation into the IPCC point of view can be described as “swallowed whole and repeated verbatim”. They accept without question the idea that there is “no possibility” any contrarian views would have been excluded, even though the emails show that IPCC leading scientists were trying and claiming privately to do exactly that. It’s clear the IPCC is going for the big ambit bluff here, and Reuters are just nodding. There is no admission that the IPCC could possibly have done anything even remotely better. The words “extensive”, “repeated”,”experts”, “thoroughness”, “every assessment”, “no possibility” and “ensure” is a lexicon of utter certainty. The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachuri, even claims there’s nothing “accidental”, which is possibly a Freudian slip. In this context of the leaked emails, he’s saying that the IPCC lauding and repetition from scientists with undenied criminal intent, was… no accident. OK. So maybe it wasn’t.
Observe here the special moment where Reuters quote the Imaginary Global Spokesman for All Scientists. Here he or she is, pronouncing the full summary of the meaning of the 160Mb of information that was leaked:
“The revelation of the e-mails was more embarrassing than serious fodder for doubts about the causes of, or basis for climate change, scientists responded this week.”
So, we don’t need to investigate all those other documents right? All that computer code, it’s not important?
Once again, it shows that “science” and “scientists” is a brand name any authoritative unit can wield and exploit. Why would Reuters, who used to pride themselves for their journalistic ability, advertise their bias so nakedly? They won’t interview the skeptical experts, or the skeptical politicians. They cover for fraudulent scientists, and the bureaucracies that use these scientists.
News of ClimateGate is running riot on the web. The word came into existence a week ago, and there are 5 million hits on the term today. Do the Reuters team think that no one will notice how much they risk their journalistic reputations on this?
Or could it be that since Reuters was taken over by Thompson Financial, a company that provides market news to financial corporations, that the conflict of interest that was feared has already arrived?
“Robert Peston, business editor at BBC News, stated that this has worried Reuters journalists, both because they are concerned that Reuters’ journalism business will be marginalized by the financial data provision business of the combined company, and because of the threat to Reuters’s reputation for unbiased journalism by the appearance of one majority shareholder.” Wikipedia.
Most of Thompson Financial’s largest clients must be the same companies who will profit wildly from carbon trading. Amazing coincidence, eh?
Joanne,
This doesn’t surprise me also because of how long this has been going on..”The Roots are Deep”!
Another very good post I might add…
Here’s a good one! Gore Flees in Panic From Chicago Book Signing
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1309.last
20
A naive question: will any of this subterfuge that’s come to light make news in Copenhagen next month? Will the final outcome of introducing cap and trade go away, or is it entirely possible that lemmings will still follow lemmings straight into the sea? Hmmm,
10
Does the word liar come to mind? The IPCC has no shame at all.
How long can they ignore the elephant in their parlor?
10
I think the problem is that people seem to think scientists always get it right. People look at you funny when you mention the DDT ban was a fraud and that there was never anything wrong with the ozone layer.
The media are all assuming that the IPCC are right. What a bad call that will turn out to be…
10
[…] pants down, hardly surprising when Al Gore is one of its advisors. Reuters likewise typifies the selective reporting going on. The people are standing up – Protestors now on TV news. In comment sections of ongoing […]
10
This isn’t the Reuters that I used to work for…
10
Patrick,
That’s a very interesting observation. Any info from the front line would be appreciated. Care to expand?
J
10
For those who are aware of it, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast has just run a pathetic apologia for the leaked CRU emails. In their fact free ramble they compared AGW skeptics to holocaust deniers, creationists and the tobacco lobby. The story, however is nothing to do with the skeptics; it is all about the AGW scientists. I do not understand why the international skeptics movement have been so gullible in response to the AGW scare. There is a rift in the skeptics movement that will do it great harm but this is trivial compared to the harm being done in the international politics of “climate change”.
I have unsubscribed from the podcast in disgust and sent them a furious but reasonable email. The work of Jo and others has convinced me that there is a real point to making a stand on this issue now, rather than swallowing my disgust in silence.
10
Jo,
I worked for Reuters, but not in any journalistic capability in the 1990’s. The company was scrupulous about keeping politics out of its reporting. This was due to the legacy of its founder, Julius Reuter, who understood that impartiality and objectiveness were the key to being trusted as the most accurate source of information. The company directors jointly held a golden share that was meant to ensure that it would always be safe from a takeover by vested interests of any sort. I’m not sure what led to this being circumvented in the Thompson takeover, but I assume it was caused by the pressure of competition from Bloomberg, who were winning an increasing share of the financial information and trading system markets, which are the main sources of Reuters’ revenue.
A light bulb just lit up over my head. As a major player in online commodity trading systems, Reuters stands to make a lot of money from emissions trading.
10
DonG,
If you go to the UNFCCC, COP15 website – Oop’s too late, it’s gone,
Well there was a little whitewash note about East Anglia CRU in the latest news column.
You can still go to the COP15 site and read all about Australia and our PM.
Worth reading are the comments under, a lot have been ‘moderated’ out, but there’s a couple of good ones.
10
Jeff,
One thing you won’t find on the UNFCCC site is any mention of the strong debate now going on in Australia as those folks try to contain this Pandora’s box of climate change assertions. My concern is that even though positive efforts are being made to at least slow down the absurdity that will occur in Copenhagen, effectively tying up long-term monies and agreements between countries, the climate change train has left the station and already has a good head of steam. Can it be uncoupled before reaching its intended destination, that of full-blown global chicanery in introducing cap and trade?
As you know, the efforts of we skeptics is as loose and scattered as leaves driven by autumn winds. We know what we’re up to, but on this side there is no global platform giving credibility to the process. Thanks to Jo and a few others, at least those of us who care can keep abreast of the latest news.
10
Attention, American and Canadian citizens we are so close to losing our Sovereignty and our Freedom, is barely hanging by a thread! Make your voice and your rights known, as you are the boss not the politicans you voted into power!
Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon ( December 7 to December 18 ) I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and that God will not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God, this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate Change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us, they are going to try to push it through anyway! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight to maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Canadians: To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing
Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: [email protected]
Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty, be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )
Protest the inaccuracy and Fraud of Climate change measurements that are going to be used in the Copenhagen Treaty: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
10
This is interesting reading from Ann Henderson-Sellers, former Director of the World Climate Research Programme based in Geneva at the headquarters of the World Meteorological Organisation.
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820
10