Gate-Crashers

Posted by BKisida | Politics, Uncategorized | July 04, 2010

4 Comments

There wasn’t really enough coverage this week about the demise of the so-called “climate-gate” scandal.  Sure, you can read in the Washington post here, or the Wall Street Journal here, or CBS News here how Michael Mann–one of the scientists whose reputation was tarnished by accusations that he had “fudged” data–was cleared by Penn State of any misconduct or wrongdoing.

From CBS News:

“The review cleared Mann of charges that he falsified climate change data, manipulated that data, improperly refused to share his research data and–generally behaved badly by trying to discredit other researchers’ work.”

From the Penn St. report:

“…the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.”

In response, the Republican chair of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert, said that “the attacks on scientists were a manufactured distraction, and today’s report is a welcome return to common sense.”

Media Matters is asking whether the news outlets (think Fox) that so-heavily pushed the climate-gate story will be as eager to report about the investigation that puts the controversy over Mann to rest.  Not likely. The coverage in Sunday’s Dem-Gaz amounted to about a one-inch by one-inch sentence in the newspaper’s sidebar.

That’s pretty much how it goes.  It’s much easier to start a lie than to end one.  “Climate-gate” will be forever with us.  It will always give certain people who prefer conspiracy theories to common sense a way to believe what they want to believe.  Accusations certainly don’t need to be true to be effective, they only need to be made.

Riff Sharing:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • email

Comments (4)

There are lots of people who overstated the degree of wrongdoing. On the other hand, the fact that one guy (Mann) wasn’t guilty of punishable misconduct doesn’t mean that nothing fishy went on.

Out of many possible examples, here are a few:

1. One of the world’s top climate scientists (Tom Wigley) said, “there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.” http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1057&filename=1255553034.txt

If that were the only leaked email, it would be quite damaging.

2. Another top climate scientist said, regarding the IPCC process, that “I know there is pressure to present a
nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.” http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=12&filename=843161829.txt

3. Phil Jones said that he’d rather delete crucial climate data rather than allow other people to see it: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt Maybe he was just venting, but it’s not an attitude of scientific inquiry.

4. Michael Mann may have been cleared of actual wrongdoing, but here’s what a couple of top scientists really thought of his work: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=272&filename=1024334440.txt

Whoever researcher Keith is, he had a funny line in that last e-mail, regarding Mann:

“He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)”

Yet another look at the dirty human face of the glorious enterprise we call Science. This doesn’t render methods and findings any less true, it just means that truth often emerges through feuds and squabbles. As Hegel said…

SBuck, thanks for the extra info. Of course it changes nothing concerning the biased media hysteria surrounding these emails that portrayed them as something they were not.

Jeff, I think you’re correct in pointng out that truth comes through squabbles. That’s a good thing. Competition of ideas and theories makes dicoveries stronger and more valid. Within that process, the most important thing is to keep the squabbles about the data and the methodology. Those are legitimate squabbles. Unfortunately far too often people try to undermine the work of science by questioning motivations. Such attacks are second rate and do nothing to serve the mission of truth.

The clearing of “Climategate” scientists is getting good press coverage this morning. My Google News search produced about 500 “similar articles” from the past day, indicating that it’s a moderately strong attention-getter today, not as strong as the oil spill but about on a par with the hot Russian spy and the priest scandal. Lovely world we live in, innit?

The journalistically interesting question is whether the sources that most aggressively reported these accusations report their resolution as well, or bury it. Bias reveals itself through story selection, placement, and characterization.