The New York Times‘ reporter on the climate beat, Andrew Revkin, had a front-page story this weekend (11/20/09) detailing the contents of climate scientists’ private emails discussing global warming. Predictably, the emails are being taken out of context by climate change deniers—but more interesting to me is the fact that the focus is on the content of the emails, not on the fact that they were illegally obtained.
That’s not the way corporate media handled the illegally taped cell phone call between Newt Gingrich, John Boehner and other Republican congressmembers in which Gingrich violated the terms of a ethics sanction by strategizing about how to minimize the charges against him. In that case, they focused on the illegality of the taping—and the unauthorized leaking of the tape by Rep. Jim McDermott (D.–Wash.).
That’s also not how the press handled the case of Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Michael Gallagher, who illegally listened to voicemails at the Chiquita corporation in pursuit of a series of stories that charged the company with involvement in bribery, fraud and the abuse of workers. Again, the wrongdoing that was considered newsworthy was the reporter’s, not the target of his investigation.
It’s hard to imagine what ethical code would tell journalists to ignore information about corporate skullduggery or congressional ethics violations if it was obtained through illicit means, but if it concerns the academic politics of climate scientists—dig in!
The climate information case was a release of publicly-funded data that is owned by the people, not private conversations. In fact, the release revealed that there was an illegal attempt to delete information to defeat an FOIA request.
So that is it likely to be protected by whistle-blower laws.
This is admittedly my first time reading a post from this website. Given that the concept of fairness is so nebulous, outside of a legal definition which clearly is not the intent of this site, as to suggest that it should be relegated to the status of mythical, I can only conclude that this site is in fact dedicated towards whatever bias the authors contain. In the matter of the pilfered data which ineluctibly leads to the conclusion that there is a widespread conspiracy in this branch of science, there are two pertinent issues, neither of which involve fairness. First, there is the fact that data was stolen, if this is in violation of the law then the appropriate authorities are required to investigate and prosecute if such is warranted.
The second issue is the nature of the data. It seems irresponsible at the very least, that you accuse some of taking statements out of context without providing examples. In this case it would also seem to me that you should do this in regards to the most inflammatory of the email quotes. I am a practicing scientist in another area, namely physics. I can state confidently that were scientists in this field to have been exposed in this matter the fact of the data having been stolen would not reduce the severity of the blowback to the scientists in question. Many careers would be ended upon discovery of plots to take over the peer review process, to suppress data to further a cause, and to discredit scientists with opposing views.
The worst of it all is that this particular episode involves climate change, one of the most economically and politically significant topics in the world. Billions, perhaps trillions of dollars, peoples way of life and the viability of hundreds to thousands of industries are at stake. There is already a growing consensus, based on examination of the evidence, that this is a debacle of the first magnitude. I am unaware of any scientific malfeasance on such a scale in recent history. It is staggering to me that you seem to have no sense of scale in this matter. The individual or individuals responsible for breaking into this computer system may or may not end up paying a penalty for thier actions. The repercussions of this information remaining hidden to all but the perpetrators of this horrendous scientific charlatanism and politically evil plot by scientists to lie about their results and slander others will echo throughout history. This is one of the most heinous crimes of the last century, comparable in scale if not in nature to the holocaust.
I invite debate on this topic, and would welcome a response from the author. As you have indicated your disdain for taking statements out of context I would only request that you refrain from doing so with my statements.
“In the matter of the pilfered data which ineluctibly leads to the conclusion that there is a widespread conspiracy in this branch of science, there are two pertinent issues, neither of which involve fairness. [sic]”
“It seems irresponsible at the very least, that you accuse some of taking statements out of context without providing examples.”
That’s rich. I haven’t read the emails, I don’t think its kosher looking at emails that were illegally obtained and not intended for me, but from what I have looked at via the blogosphere, there is hardly a conspiracy – except for those who’s goal is it to undermine climate science.
“This is one of the most heinous crimes of the last century, comparable in scale if not in nature to the holocaust.”
hahahaha. Only in your head. Godwins law doesn’t always take long, does it?
you as fair as Fox news, aren’t you?
How dare Mr. “Wonderly” (hardly!) compare the consensus on climate change to the Holocaust. The millions of people who died at the hands of an insane dictator and his sycophants have only one context in common with this one–that if we don’t take action now, Big Oil and Big Coal will have succeeded in triggering the demise of our current civilization on this Earth. Now, mind you–the Earth will be just fine, we just won’t be occupying it in the fashion we do now. Billions of people will die–without water and without food. Yeah, that’s your Holocaust, Mr. Wonderly–brought about by people like you who deny science and rush to create fantasies of a conspiracy so vast that it would dwarf any other.
And by the way–those of us who happen to be Jewish and who happen to have lost relatives in the real Holocaust–do not take your libel lightly.
I totally agree with Mr. Wonderly. I am Jewish as well and well understand why the Holocaust comparison is a no go. However, I believe many of you are disingenuously jumping on this error in judgment by Mr. Wonderly. His over the top example does not make him wrong about the limate debate and that’s where you will win or lose in the court of public opinion. I believe some people will do anything if they believe in their cause. They lose the sense of right and wrong and the end then justifies the means. The email hacking was an example of wrongdoing. So was the deliberate manipulation of climate data. The difference? One cost us billions and put billions in the hands of dishonest brokers. They also tried to hurt honest scientists. The other was the only way to get Freedom of Information data to the public despite being stonewalled.
So assuming one act was worse than the other (far far worse I believe though let’s stay away from the H word), how can you honestly believe this exposure was as bad as email fraud? It’s the same thought process that believes ACORN’s wrongdoings were nothing compared to the serious crime of violation of privacy by the intrepid reporters who bravely exposed them.
I have no horse in this race. I call it as I see it, and have followed (the anti climate change leader) Lord Christopher Monckton’s words for years but waited for proof. The proof is here. The perpetrators must be punished and those of you who are seeing the truth must now come to terms with. Don’t shoot the messenger.
I know this doesn’t prove climate change does not exist, so how about we start again, but this time with real science? Am I wrong?
Mr. Wonderly is oh so quick to “conclude that this site is in fact dedicated towards whatever bias the authors contain” when, by his OWN admission this is the first time he has even been to the website. I would say this it baised on Wonderly’s part to reach such a conclusion off the cuff. More importantly, he then condemn the “nature of the data” under discussion as he ASSUMES without question that the this data is correct and has been taken out of context and distorted by the media. Excuse me. And this guy claims to be a scientist?
Here is what REAL scientists (including climate scientists) say about this story:
Scientists say the illegally obtained emails do not undermine climate change science
Distortions of illegally obtained documents from one group of scientists do not undermine overwhelming consensus. In a statement on the reported theft of the emails, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that “no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment.” From Pachauri’s statement:
In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.
IPCC: “Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.” The IPCC, which is a scientific body established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, has established that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal.” The IPCC “reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide,” and its reports are the product of contributions from “[t]housands of scientists from all over the world.”
Nature: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real.” A December 2 editorial in the science journal Nature stated: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.” Also from the editorial:
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers’ own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers
I am BEYOND fed up with the ignorance of people who grab onto every stupid thing they can to deny the reality of global warming. GET OVER IT. Global warming IS happening. It is REAL and people like Wonderly better start thinking about the impact of global warming on the economy and BILLIONS of people lives!!!
150,000
The number of people who died in 2000 due to debilitating diseases caused by climate change in 2000, according to a 2003 study by the World Health Organization.
A 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that â┚¬Ã…“hundreds of millions of people in developing nations will face natural disasters, water shortages and hunger” due to climate change. The report warned that global warming’s effects are already being felt “on every continent, and sooner than expected.”
In 1910 there were 150 glaciers at Glacier National Park; now there are 25.
Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers within ten years.
Southern California is home to 23 million people, all of whom are dependent on the Colorado River for the majority of their water needs.
Due to decreasing mountain snow melt in areas like Glacier National Park and the Colorado River, the primary water supply for seven states, will be unable to meet demands within FOUR YEARS.
1. Mountain glaciers are receding worldwide and will be gone within 50 years if CO2 emissions continue to increase. This threatens the fresh water supply for billions of people, as rivers arising in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains will begin to run dry in the summer and fall.
2. Coral reefs, home to a quarter of biological species in the ocean, could be destroyed by rising temperature and ocean acidification due to increasing CO2.
3. Dry subtropics are expanding poleward with warming, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, and Australia, with increasing drought and fires.
While this article does not give an example of the context of the pilfered data I do not think it was meant to. Instead it was an admonishment of those who would steal and then use the ill gotten booty as irrefutable fact.
As for the data being public? I don’t see how an email not addressed to anyone but the intended recipient is public. Using this logic you could say top secret documents are public because taxpayer money funds the government. Al qaeda would love that!
As for the context of the stolen emails we are only left to wonder how relevant they really are. As with most of the information provided by the right wing it is questionable at best. And there’s a good chance the data has now been doctored to further cloud the subject.
That being said I’ll stick with the scientists and their explanations of what the emails really meant. So we’ll just have to live through this right-wing circus show until the paranoia passes and the right figures out how to “enlighten” us again.
it was an admonishment of those who would steal and then use the ill gotten booty as irrefutable fact
No, it wasn’t and it wasn’t about climate change, either, which is why comments such a HWonderly’s are not only bizarre, they are entirely off-topic.
The post was about the media. Specifically, how in this case the media focused on the (out of centext)content of the emails while ignoring that they were illegally obtained while in the two other cases cited the means by which the information was obtained became the story wtih the content mostly if not entirely ignored.