Sunday, November 29, 2009


Joe Romm Cuts Through the Lies of ClimateGate

The most entertaining part of ClimateGate has been to watch the folks at RealClimate and ClimateProgress spin this as a huge disinformation campaign by the "deniers." The best one I've seen so far is (not surprisingly) Joe Romm, who writes:
Michael Mann, one of the country’s leading climatologists, has coauthored a major new review and analysis of climate science since the 2007 IPCC report. much attacked by the anti-scientific disinformers because of his work on the paleoclimate “hockey stick” reconstructions of temperature over the past couple of millennia. Contrary to what the disinformers continue to say, however, the hockey stick was essentially vindicated by the National Academy of Sciences...

Since some of his email exchanges were made public by the recent illegal hack of documents from the University of East Anglia, he has also distributed a response to various members of the media and bloggers...

Misrepresentation of these emails is so common that the Washington Post issued one of the fastest retractions/corrections in its history. I had blogged on their November 25 op-ed “Climate of Denial” here...Well, one day later, they “clarified” one of their assertions about Mann...So this should be a cautionary tale to the media to go to the primary source before simply repeating what others have said.
Wow, Romm makes it sound as if the Washington Post spread baseless gossip that is totally unconnected to the hacked emails, doesn't he? I wonder what scurrilous charges the innocent scientist--just minding his own business, trying to save humanity from climate catastrophe--was accused of, before the WP had to retract their libel?

Check out the WP clarification. I don't want to spoil it. Let this be a lesson to all those who dare to criticize the world's leading climatologists!

Haha! Thanks for making the "retraction" suspenseful. What a great example to sum up what climatologists seem to be doing all the time. Was there a retraction? "Well, no, but there WAS a correction." How much of the criticism did it correct? "Hmmm-hmm, that's not important."
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]