Stories like this are exactly why the mainstream media has become a joke: Stolen Climate E-Mails Cause A Ruckus In Congress : NPR.
That headline is ridiculous, and so is the story. The real story here is not that emails were “stolen”, especially since the best evidence indicates that they were leaked. And since all these files were the target of multiple FOI requests by scientists trying to dig into the research, for years, but denied every step of the way, an unbiased observer might conclude that this information was really public for all intents and purposes, anyway, and should have been available years ago. Plus, I thought the media loved using FOI requests to bring down the powerful and the arrogant? Yet now they don’t even want to mention it without using loaded words like “stolen”. So very, very odd!
And the real fallout from the real story is much, much more than a “ruckus”; use of the word ruckus frames it as a bunch of spoiled brats arguing about who touched who first. The real story with the “stolen emails” is that the credibility of the IPCC–what was still left of it, anyway–is gone.
That credibility is gone because within the “stolen” files there were also computer code files that were obviously used to manipulate input data to achieve the desired goal of scaring the pants off of everybody.
Now, if you’ve been following this, Mann’s entire temperature reconstruction method rests on knowing (observing) recent periodic global temperatures, y. Quibbling about principle components aside, that’s the dependent variable in the backcasts. But as is now becoming increasingly plain, y was constructed from an undocumented process that took raw ground station data and ran it through a black box that included smoothing, filtering, inference, manipulation, baling wire, glue and the juice of one whole lemon. This is what the CRU people are calling “valued added homogenized data.” Or what normal people call “made up horseshit.” It’s also the temperature data that dozens, if not hundreds of AGW studies are based on.
That “made-up horseshit” data forms the basis of the IPCC proof of man-caused global warming. Take a moment and let that soak in.
A real science reporter with no agenda to push would explain all this to the reader.
But what do we get instead? “Stolen E-Mails Cause A Ruckus”. That’s just awesome. So if you follow NPR as your main source of news, which lots of people do, you get a spin from this that is missing the point so completely that you’re actually less informed after reading it. You think you’ve got the story, but you don’t. And since basically the entire media takes this same monolithic angle on stories that hurt their pet causes, then tens of millions of people are swayed by what is basically complete bullshit.
Contrast that, for example, with this Telegraph (UK) story headline: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation. Because it is, objectively speaking, the “worst scientific scandal of our generation”. And you can see that quite clearly when you bring objectivity and analytical skills to the party, two things that the mainstream U.S. media sadly lacks.
I laugh every time I read (or hear) people rip on Fox News for being biased, yet ignore the daily examples–like this–of outright lies being spun for us everyday at nearly every other media outlet in the U.S. Well, Fox bashers, I’m very sorry to have to tell you this, but you have been deceived so consistently, and for so long, that you can’t really judge Truth vs. Spin. The mainstream media has proven over and over again that it is a political left-wing monolith, happy to cover stories that push the causes it supports, and at the same time, cover up those that it doesn’t. Those who don’t see that by now are either too partisan to care, or simply unable to see it because they’re too close to it.
Let me gently suggest here that some of you need to get out more. The Internet is a very big place, with lots of sites. And while it’s nice to be all warm and fuzzy in a cocoon of like-minded news coverage, it has become increasingly obvious that the media has very little credibility on any issue with a hint of politics around it. Do you really want that?
This entire global warming debate has never really been about liberal vs. conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican, or green vs. whatever-the-opposite-of-green-is. Those are the usual canards and deceptions fed to us to keep us distracted from the reality. It is actually about truth, and about how some of us are interested in truth, while other are more interested in myth. And that, friends, is not good for any of us.