By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, January 4, 2010
It’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration, ”You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving there are lies of commission and omission.
Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”
The mainstream media willfully ignore the massive deception just as they have the political exploitation of climate science. In fact, most led or joined attacks on scientists who dared to point out the problems. They’re still doing it directly or by their silence. There’s no excuse for missing the biggest story in history. It proves the adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
To See Ourselves As Others See Us
Michael Mann, the most aggressive, bullying and deceptive member of the CRU gang, claims without embarrassment there’s nothing significant in the emails. As Keith Briffa wrote, It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.” He even scared his fellow CRU conspirators as one noted on October 26 2003, “Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….” A psychologist can probably identify these behavior characteristics.
In a Washington Post article Mann said the content “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” It’s the confidence trick they’ve always used exploiting the fact most people don’t know how much climate changes naturally. As a result they can report natural change as unnatural and by implication caused by humans. The real issue is the cause of climate change. Now we know how the CRU gang used deception to falsely prove it was human produced CO2. But the mainstream media brush it off, ignore it, or deliberately play along with the CRU gang denials. A good example of the latter was the action of the Associated Press (AP) identified by a Washington Times editorial titled, “Biased Reporting on Climategate – Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows.” They wrote, “There’s a big difference between saying that there is insufficient evidence to determine if falsification occurred—and that there should be an investigation—and saying, as AP did, “Science not faked.” The Times is wrong because it’s incorrect to say there is insufficient evidence, but it is a measure of poor journalism.
The Stink is Unavoidable
Evidence of wrongdoing in the emails doesn’t require understanding of the science. Any objective reading quickly dispels the claim they are normal banter between colleagues.
On 22 November 1996 from Geoff Jenkins (UK Met Office) to Phil Jones, “Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.”“We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (Executive Director of UNEP) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls (IPCC lead author and Australian Met Bureau employee.)??” They’re talking about releasing an annual global temperature a month before the year is over. Hardly scientific or responsible bureaucratic behavior, but they think deceiving the public is “fun”.
On March 11, 2003 Mann acknowledges they silenced skeptics by criticizing them for not having peer-reviewed publications. They could do this because they believed they controlled peer review of climate change papers. Mann writes, “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
On May 29, 2008 Jones directs Mann to delete emails about requests for Freedom of Information.
On 24 April 2003 Wigley upset about Hans von Storch’s editorial role proposes to mislead the publishers, “One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.”Is this normal discourse between academics?
On 21 Jan 2005 Jones writes to Wigley about requests under the Freedom of Information Act, “Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.“Why would he need to hide?
On 8 July 2004 Jones to Mann, I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Even if the malfeasance wasn’t obvious a check of the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review all literature would disclose it.
On 2 February 2005 from Jones to Mann “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” “They”are McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) names already familiar in the mainstream media.
On 29 April 2007 Briffa to Mann; a red flag is waved by the comment, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” The only need for science is accuracy and openness, which means the IPCC is not about science. That alone should trigger further investigative journalism.
Those involved in the original deception now present ludicrous arguments. The journal “Nature”used in the corruption of the peer-review process and biased throughout says, “If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.”
Absolute rubbish! They should read their guidelines, which say in part, An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors’ published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without preconditions. (Their emphasis).
The ability to reproduce results is fundamental to science.
Jim Hoggan, Chairman of the Board of the Suzuki Foundation and founder of the sleazy, squalid, web site Desmogblog, says the real issue is the agenda of the people who stole the files. It’s an agenda Hoggan, a professional spinner, and the biased mainstream media would not recognize or understand; a desire for openness and the truth.