Bishop Hill Green reviews of the year
Dec 27, 2010 Climate: CRU Media I've been struck by a couple of the environment correspondents' reviews of 2010, particularly as regards Climategate and the impact of my own GWPF report on the inquiries.
For example, when the report was issued, the contents, which to my mind show pretty conclusively that the Oxburgh and Russell reviews were whitewashes, were reported by the Telegraph's Louise Gray without disputing either the facts or my analysis. One could see her article as an attempt to divert attention away from my principal evidence, but there was no case that the facts were contested.
It was surprising then to see that in her review of 2010, Louise reports as follows:
Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), claimed to have done nothing wrong. But it took three reviews for him to clear his name of any scientific wrong doing. However UEA was criticised for failing to share information correctly.
... a summary that seems to fly in the face of her own headline back in September, that "doubt remains over Climategate".
It was a similar story in the Guardian, with the paper not disputing the findings in my report at the time, but now telling its readers
...four separate inquiries completed in 2010 cleared professor Phil Jones, head of East Anglia university's Climatic research unit, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Instead, questions were levelled at the way in which they responded to requests for information
It's almost as if the report is being airbrushed out of history.
Reader Comments (19)
"airbrushed out of history".
A bit like Sir David King rewriting history by claiming the UK had had a hot summer.
o/t: Piers Corbyn on Fox News today:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475360/mocked-meteorologist-gets-last-laugh
Of course. That was never in doubt. You islanders seem to cherish some obsolete fantasy about honest inquiry in journalism.
The real question is what makes these people hew to the party line. Blind misguided faith in...what? Revulsion at the prospect the 'wrong' people might actually have a point? The expectation that spouting the 'right' views is more lucrative? Fear at wandering away from party orthodoxy?
@JEM - Groupthink.
I saw the LiveAid / Geldof documentary on the box and was gob-smacked by St. Bob's insistence that the truth mustn't get in the way of saving lives.
When people are true believers then "being right" gives them a licence to do really bad things with impunity. There was an article in The Economist a while back which suggested this about devout church-goers. Is AGW any different?
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe" - St Augustine.
CAGW's take note.
I see that Louise is one whitewash behind the Guardian...
Louise Gray: "...it took three reviews..."
Guardian: "...four separate inquiries..."
Come on Louise, keep up. (The climate models are projecting 8-9 climategate inquiry vindications by the end of 2011, ... and another Nobel prize for Mann).
Like children hiding their faces so that you can't see them, the alarmists and environmental correspondents think if you ignore the Bishops' GWPF report on the reviews, it doesn't exist.
The same applies to the MSM's general refusal to review the HSI and the alarmist peers to address the devastating speech made by Lord Lawson in the recent second reading of the Energy Bill in the Lords. They cannot counter the arguments, and think that by ignoring them they will go away.
Sorry, media chaps [and chappesses] they won't.
FarleyR - The problem with the Geldof approach is that in their fervor to 'do something' they more often than not end up making any given situation worse.
Good Journalism is not dead, but it does have a "generational" aspect that leads one to that conclusion on many occassions. Today we are in a Dismal Swamp of Journalistic Decay, the current group of Mid-Life Journalists is rather lackluster and narrow focused and single minded to say the least. But be not discouraged, for what good would it do, this generation too will pass; though that does not mean that our children are likely to see better. That which passes for human history is a taudry collection of accidents and disasters indeed; and those who get to tell the story are frequently wanting in several respects themselves. Buck Up! Onward and Upward!
@Jem - I love Reagan's advice: "Don't just do something - why not stand there..."
Groupthink with a side order of churnalism. Expect the same line to be repeated by the usual media suspects because that's easier than investigating the farcical inquiries. Running copy from the SMC or similar is easier and cheaper than old fashioned journalism.
@ Pascvaks - good journalism died long ago, for example Google WTC7 and nano-thermite, or watch Press for Truth. The media has been so incompetent/complicit that the relatives have recently paid for TV adverts - http://buildingwhat.org/buildingwhat-tv-ad/ - in an attempt to instigate a proper investigation. No matter how blatant the failings of the IPCC and hockey team's AGW science, don't be too hopeful that the media will cover it - let alone report the truth.
"Bishops' "should read "Bishop's..."
Louise Grey may be, or may just as well be, an android. She has about 3,540 article hits in the Telegraph. In those with comment threads, has anyone ever seen a thread debate from her? Geoffrey Lean is similar. Roger Highfield (now New Scientist Editor), Charles Clover (now Sunday Times), and Leo Hickman (now Guardian) gave up on the Telegraph, possibly because they sought something more gullibly furtile than than the intractably barren acreage they ploughed there.
I see that Louise is one whitewash behind the Guardian...
Louise Gray: "...it took three reviews..."
Guardian: "...four separate inquiries..."
Come on Louise, keep up. (The climate models are projecting 8-9 climategate inquiry vindications by the end of 2011, ... and another Nobel prize for Mann).
Dec 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM | ZT
It is really hard ZT to concentrate when your major ability is "Cut and Paste". Every time she posts the commenters rip into her for not even bothering to write the articles up! Just Bob Ward with the single brain cell removed
Cut and paste - is intensely popular in climatology. (Here is a collection of examples).
Repetition, incantations, and apocalypse - no wonder AGW is popular.
Okay Bish...that was a heavy, long time in the bar in Shanghai whilst you lot were sleeping...BUT O/T Not many Antipodeans were their usual mouthy selves... One wonder why and it aint nothing to do with temps!
The Guardian airbrush job is here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/27/2010-environment-year-review
It’s picked up just 6 comments in over 24 hours, presumably because - bizarrely, for environment review of the year - it doesn’t turn up on the Guardian Evironment page. I do recommend the non-banned mitre-biters among you to get over there and sort out Mr Vidal.
It's almost as if the report is being airbrushed out of history.
Yes. I call it Climategate Denialism.