The Sound of Silence

It's been 72 hours since "Climategate" became an international story and despite the fact that one of the University of Arizona's most prominent researchers is at the heart of an international scandal, there has been exactly zero coverage in the local Mainstream Media.  (If you don't know about the story, start here and then work your way back up.)

Well, it's not exactly true that there has been "zero" coverage.  I Googled "Malcolm Hughes" to see if the local media had picked up on the story and found that KOLD in Tucson did a story on Hughes just yesterday.  Incredibly, the story cited Hughes' work without any mention of the unfolding scandal.  Is Hughes work credible?  The emails that have been made public make a compelling case that Hughes has been part of a group that is manipulating data and stifling peer review in order to justify and maintain their pre-conceived notions about climate change. 

In fact, when you Google "Malcolm Hughes" you will find the KOLD story plus 1,052 stories about the unfolding scandal.  So despite the fact that Hughes is local and that Arizona journalists have been quoting him for years, Arizona newspaper readers have no idea what has happened--and KOLD viewers can be excused for assuming that nothing has happened.

Here's a great example of a story by the Star's Tom Beal.  The story is only a week old and tells us how the story of Global Warming can be understood though Malcolm Hughes' work.  So how about an update Tom?  After all, Hughes is one of the most prominent professors at the University of Arizona and you cited his work approvingly as recently as last week.  How about making it 1053 stories and one of them can be local. 

Pretty soon I'm going to start to believe that the local environmental coverage is skewed and reporters leave out information that doesn't fit their pre-conceived narrative.  Golly, that would be shocking.

Meanwhile, while the Mainstream media covers up the story, the populace has realized that "Hide the Decline" is a defining moment in the climate change saga.  I think you will enjoy this.

Comments

[todd]

I still am waiting to see evidence that counters the accepted climate change theory or even demonstrates they distorted data. I have yet to see this.

What we have seen are scientists who are feeling under attack because they have been relentlessly bombarded by well-funded efforts to discredit their work. It is not surprising they developed a siege mentality. There does seem some evidence that they were not responding to FOI requests, although I do not know the law for that in Australia.

As to 'stifling peer reviews' that is hardly what the emails reveal. The emails reveal the discussion of boycotting the journal Climate Research, which on its face is not 'stifling', but the reason for this is not because the journal published an article they didn't like, but because the article was shown to be deeply flawed and called into question the journals review process. The editor tried to change it, was blocked and resigned in protest. So did others involved with the journal. The incident is well described here:

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

[fortbuckley]

"Pretty soon I'm going to start to believe that the local environmental coverage is skewed and reporters leave out information that doesn't fit their pre-conceived narrative."

Playing devil's advocate here---it might take the Star some time to respond. Here's my thinking:

If Malcom Hughes really is one of the pooh-bahs of worldwide climate change thinking, then that makes him a BIG, BIG fish in the small pond known as the University of Arizona, which is nestled in the only-slightly-bigger pond that is Tucson.

I know nothing of the Star's environmental sciences reporting staff, but I'll bet that Hughes's CV is three times longer than theirs. Plus, there are LOTS of people on the U of A and in Tucson who don't relish the prospect of one of the Old Pueblo's international academic stars being outed as a careless scientist or (much much worse) a fraud.

As the old saying goes...if you set out to kill the King, be sure to kill the King. Don't go halfway.

Let's leave open the possibility that the Star's staff is digging, doing research, getting quotes from subject-matter-experts before writing major stories on this topic.

Or, Greg, maybe you're right.

Either way...we'll know soon enough. This story won't die, and the Star knows it.

[Name2]

Greg,

There is a three paragraph article (from wire services, not locals) on page A2 today. Headline, "GOP opens investigation of climate change e-mails".

No mention of any Arizona connection.

[Travis]

I wouldn't mind the headline, "GOP opens investigation of climate change e-mails", if there were ever to be a headline that reads, "DNC funds climate change lies".

[elephant]

These "scientists" were more honest in their computer codes.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

[todd]

elephant
this article makes much of the term 'fudge factor' in the source code comments but they clearly have no idea this means something entirely different than lying.

This look at the source code is particularly disgusting to me because it is clear a) the authors have no idea what they are looking at b) people routinely write various versions of programs to test different hypothesis and c) there is no evidence of any fraud or linking of a specific version of code to some specific scientific claim.

In my view, this avenue demonstrates the complete lack of ethics of the climate sceptics.

[Chad]

The earth's mean temp was hotter in the 13th century than it is today. The current mean temp has been on a 10 to 12 year decline and is expected to continue getting colder until 2030.

The polar bear population is 5 times larger than it was 50 years ago.

And Al Gore won't debate a real scientist.

The defensiveness of Todd, AGW alarmists and the media is stunning. Clearly there is a political agenda, not a scientific one.

[todd]

Chad - your willingness to believe anecdotes over actual science reveals your agenda. Oh, and who cares what Al Gore will or will not do - what bearing does this have on the science?

[PW]

Todd writes: "As to 'stifling peer reviews' that is hardly what the emails reveal."

Really?????

You don't think that is what the following emails reveal?

Michael Mann CRU head suggesting that they "no longer submit to, or cite papers in" Climate Research.
Wigley saying that the publisher of the journal should be told it is "perceived" as publishing misinformation because saying it is perceived, "whether it is true or not is what the publishers care about - it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts."

Mann saying, "We can't afford to lose GRL." [Geophysical Research Letters]
Wigley replying, "we could go through official AGU channels to get [the editor, Saiers] ousted." and then, after the ouster,
Wigley emailing "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

Phil Jones email to Kevin Trenberth with list of peers to review his paper in which he assures Trenberth, "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting."

Phil Jones again with, "I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Michael Mann emailing colleagues, "you're free to use RC [RealClimate] in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through... We can hold comment up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not".

What WOULD it take to make you think they were 'stifling peer reviews'?

[todd]

PW - I already addressed this above. Please read the link I posted above.

[fortbuckley]

todd, are you permanently assigned to the EspressoPundit comments page? Do you plan to take any time off over these holidays?

[todd]

fortbuckley. I try to spread the love around as much as I can.

[fortbuckley]

todd, I was joking at first. But then, I went back and read the time delay between the comments from elephant, chad, PW and me (2nd time) and your replies. In each case---no more that 30 minutes!

Does your keyboard beep when someone comments?

[PW]

Todd,
You argue that one, one(!), of the instances can be explained, and you imply that does not mean they were "stifling" debate. The point is they engaged in a series of acts, one of which you think can be explained, culminating in the scheme to block any unfavorable study from the IPCC by redefining what peer review means.
How can you not be concerned with that?

[todd]

PW = I think you have a couple of misunderstandings. First is that this claimed blocking of a paper from IPCC is directly related to the information I posted because it involves the editor De Freitas of Climate Research accepting the papers under question even though they were fatally flawed. The second problem is that these scientists can't 'redefine what peer review is' and therefore this is hyperbole. Clearly they don't want to have bad papers in the report. This would be like someone saying that they are going to keep something happening and will 'move heaven and earth' to do so.

As to the Realclimate blog, I don't think website owners with comments should block things other than things that are spam or illegal. Realclimate isn't a scientific forum though.

I don't know what the issue was with GRL, maybe you could explain that to me.

[Jim Torgeson]

There's always climate change, but how much impact humsn haave on it is the concern.

What I am curious about is the goal, the reason to distort the facts. If the numbers have been fudged, why?

[Stewie]

You know the old joke:

Knock, knock
Who's there?
Rielle
Rielle who?
You must be with the mainstream media.

Now it's
Knock, knock
Who's there?
Global warming fraud
Global warming fraud who?
....you know the rest...

It's the old movie line

"I am shocked, SHOCKED to find out there is global warming fraud."

"The proceeds from your carbon credits, Mr. Gore"

[Steve F.]

http://camirror.wordpress.com/

One of the "deniers" singled out in the emails, Steve McIntyre, has a climate change blog.

And yes, he's having a complete blast with this. Manna from heaven, and all that.

That's a mirror. The "normal" site, http://www.climateaudit.org/ is getting completely hammered, and is/was nearly inaccessible...

[MrXYZ]

Message to the Environmental Movement - Climategate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hftsk4gWqI&feature=related

note: there's another with similar title that's just a guy talking, this one has interesting visuals

[Mesa Econoguy]

The fact that this is receiving zero coverage by the MSM is not only completely unsurprising, it is entirely expected.

Close to zero journalists have math or science background sufficient enough to understand the questions (and obfuscation), and the few who may have been heavily involved in the scam (see here

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html

for example), which in part is how and why this fraud was perpetuated for so long.

The local reporters I have spoken with or read display none of the cognitive ability to grasp the significance of this story, much less the scientific details.

One of the more prominent “amateur” skeptics is local. Warren Meyer (Princeton, Aerospace Engineering, Harvard MBA) runs the skeptic site http://www.climate-skeptic.com/, and has a multitude of material there, including video from a recent presentation at Phoenix Country Day School.

I'm going to find out more about this Malcom Hughes person.

[elephant]

Without the raw data, the global warming claims cannot be confirmed by independent analysis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

[todd]

elephant - this claim is being made by the Competitive Enterprise Institute who, no doubt, are not at all influenced in this by their funding from Exxon Mobil, Ford, etc. CEI is perhaps only slightly less reliable on this issue than the WSJ editorial page.

It is also completely untrue. Similar data is available from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. The CRU did get rid of 5% of their copies raw data and uses quality controlled data that removed faulty stations or one which were affected by urbanization during the time and they had other stations nearby.

[Mark DeSimone]

The video is funny. That is what is really important.

[BobH]

Wrong again, Todd. From The Times (UK):

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

[todd]

BobH,
The Times is wrong.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

[BobH]

Todd -- that article in E&E you cite was published six weeks ago; The Times' article is yesterday.

CRU was denying destroying the data six weeks ago, now they're admitting it -- apparently E&E fell for their BS, as you appear to.

They are admitting it, I might add, on their own website, according to The Times.

Looks like a pattern of lies, doesn't it?

[BobH]

In any case -- we'll see soon enough. I'm sure they will publish it if they have it, and then they will be exposed or prove their case; or they will not publish it, and they will be exposed.

[Nick]

The future?

Warmist retired from leadership!

This may be a first: a major political party has dumped a global warming believer as leader and replaced him with sceptic who last month called AGW “crap”. Tony Abbott has tempered his public pronouncements since, but has today become the new Liberal leader, toppling warmist Malcolm Turnbull, specifically because he was the only one of the three contenders today to promise to delay the Government’s emissions trading scheme.

[todd]

BobH - yes this was addressed six weeks ago and the Times couldn't even be bothered to note that. I see no admission on the website. I think the problem here is you are intellectually lazy and unwilling to actually look into things yourself and would rather really on sources that meet your viewpoint. Good luck with that.

[elephant]

Jones has been "temporarily" removed. Mann is being investigated. Looks like they are the "intellectually lazy" ones.

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091201/ap_on_hi_te/eu_britain_climate_hacked_e_mails

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

[elephant]

And per the WSJ, let's hope the investigators "follow the money."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read