Wednesday
Feb172010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mosher in PJs
Feb 17, 2010 Climate: CA Climate: CRU Steve Mosher, the man who broke the CRU emails story and author of Climategate: The CRUtape Letters, is interviewed on PJTV. Some interesting thoughts on what it means and why the US press has largely ignored it.
Reader Comments (14)
Do we really need to login to hear the interview? Or has the interview has been taken down? I see it here, but not here.
Hmm. I think I'm registered. I thought visitors got a few free views before they asked for registration.
OT.
For Canadians.
The book " The Hockey Stick Illusion" can be ordered through Amazon.ca.
Ordered Feb08
Received Feb17 ( from The Book Depository )
Book price 18.23 $CAD, shipping !!!!!!!!!!! 6>49 $CAD 8>)
Shipping should say 6.49 CAD$
I thinnk that Steve did a good job. Very clear. Low key and precise.
I'm not registered and it worked ok, had to refresh the page a couple of times to get the vid showing tho.
I thought Steve came over very well, it was interesting to hear the NYT editor comments, this thing has moved so fast that was one snippet I missed.
OT
Whatever else will the Alarmist BBC come up with next?
"Protecting the Past 15 Feb 10
Mon, 15 Feb 10
Climate change is accelerating the loss of the world's most important historic sites. Alice Roberts discovers how new technology may help preserve them."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/costearth
Thanks guys.
I also did piece a while back on biggovernment
http://biggovernment.com/author/smosher/
Part of the reason the US media has been so quiet is because General Electric as the owner of NBC and CNBC has huge investments in compact fluorescent lightbulbs and wind turbines.
Westinghouse/CBS is part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) so again a vested interest against fossil fuels.
I suspect this story will eventually break first in FOX followed by ABC as they do not appear to anything at stake except for a loss of face.
If you are not registered they will play a short segment asking you to register before they play the interview.
I second @Bernie.
Mosher and Fuller did a great job. I enjoyed the book but it will take at least a couple of reads to get all the detail. I am a bit late to the party.
Highly recommended to everyone.
Mosher gives very clear-sighted pragmatic summing up of the whole current UEA situation. Like the Bishop I had no trouble viewing it, but I believe I signed on too at some time, but descended from a long line of skinflints, certainly did not pay them any dues.
A very clear and balanced statement of the state of play. A few of my observations on the state of play in the UK:
(1) some of the UK media has taken this up, including the tabloids such as the Mail and the Express. The Daily Telegraph has reporters on both sides - Lean and Delingpole. The Spectator has run a couple of cover pieces. Andrew Neill has used the BBC Daily Politics show to question the protagonists.
(2) I agree that the Harrabin/Jones interview is part of a damage limitation exercise on the part of the political/scientific establishment.
(3) When that political/scientific establishment says "the science is settled" what they mean is that "their opinion on the science is settled".
(4) Bear in mind that this opinion has been "settled" for at least fifteen years and has found expression in tens of millions of pounds of state funding of climate research, AGW propaganda, the Stern Report and the Climate Change Act which saddles the UK with back breaking taxation.
(5) It will require a stupendous effort to counter and undo this "settled opinion". The only way it will be done is by the application of scientific methods to the understating of climate change. The role of the Royal Society in all of this will be both critical and interesting to watch.
"The role of the Royal Society in all of this will be both critical and interesting to watch."
Certainly interesting to watch, I suspect they will hold the to the AGW line longer than "scientific opinion" in the UK does. The mainstream media pay some attention to the RS, I don't think politicians pay it any attention (as opposed to citing the RS in support of predetermined opinions).
To repeat an earlier post, the Royal Society is NOT the UK Academy of Sciences, although it is striving to be seen as such. Personally I deplore this aspiration, as it moves the Society away from its honorable past ("Nullius in verba") to a dangerous future (latterday Lysenkoism).