Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

The Guardian's Climategate series

By Juliet Eilperin

No media outlet has devoted as much time and energy to examining Climategate, the controversy over leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, as the Guardian.

Now, The Guardian has published a 12-part Climategate series looking at different aspects of the scandal.

For anyone with an opinion on whether climate science is grounded in fact or skewed, this series is worth reading.

By

Juliet Eilperin

 |  March 12, 2010; 5:09 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Obama and senators meet on climate change, energy | Next: Climate troika woos corporate America

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Have read about the Maunder Minimum. There was a time in Europe called the Little Ice Age. It coincided with a period of minimal sunspot activity called the Maunder Minimum. The minimal sunspot/solar flaring activity was recorded by competent astronomers of the day who were watching the sun. Some climatologists used this data to indicate solar causes of global climate change. That is the story the anti-carbon people did not like to tell.

Posted by: rainsong | March 15, 2010 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Eilperin (part 2)

And poor persecuted Nature magazine. What did they do to earn such vituperation? All they did was violate their own policy that requires that all data and mathematical permutation that form the basis of every article be made available to anyone who requests same.

Pearce then claims that “All this happened against the backdrop of a long-term assault by politically motivated, and commercially funded, climate-change deniers against the activities of many of the key scientists featuring in the emails.” I and many other skeptics sure wish Fred would tell us where to find all of this commercial funding that he claims is available. The fact is that no such funding exists. References to it are lies. By the way, do not call us deniers; we are heretics.

Fred then allows that Tom Wigley, who formerly was Jones boss at CRU and now is located at The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) was the hero in all of this. Fred then seems surprised that Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) got roped into this mess. Here is a clue for you Fred, UCAR and NCAR have the same street address, 1850 Table Mesa Dr., Boulder, CO 80305-5602. The UCAR web site says, “NCAR and the UCAR Community Programs are managed by UCAR, a nonprofit consortium of research universities, on behalf of the National Science Foundation and the university community.” What kind of journalist could have missed that tidbit?

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 15, 2010 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Eilperin,

I have tried to read the Guardian series of articles, but cannot finish. I am sure that the increase in my blood pressure caused by this attempt to gloss over the real crimes against science is not going to be good for me.

In the second paragraph, we learn that Michael Mann, who perpetrated one of the vilest distortions of science in history, believes that the cabal was merely, trying to hide, "dirty laundry one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things ..."

Four paragraphs on we learn of “. . . chaos caused in the labs by the efforts of outsiders to question what was going on, without using the established rules of science, like working through publication in peer-reviewed literature.” Excuse me, but those who are now complaining about the chaos were the same ones who were using every guile in their arsenal to prevent access to the data and worse, to prevent those scientists having negative opinions about the global warming hypothesis from ever publishing anything in peer reviewed journals.

It also is true that this same cabal conspired to have an editor of one of the peer reviewed journals fired, because he allowed publication of an article that the “boys” did not like.

I do not know what field of scientific endeavor in which Fred Pearce participated and which gives him license to complain, but it is quite different from any science with which I am familiar.

Posted by: snorbertzangox | March 15, 2010 5:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Juliet. If you really want to provide balance in the Post's coverage of climate matters, how about a book review:

"Hockey Stick Illusion"

Climate Gate and the Corruption of Science

Another way to express it is the way that the Washington Post editorial writers address the same questions “Shut-eyed Denial”

The issue isn't, and never has been, that skeptics deny that CO2 traps heat, nor that temperatures have increased for the last 30 or so years. The issue is the falsification of the historical record so that today's temperatures can be described as 'unprecedented'. Same goes for 'unprecedented' reductions in polar ice.

Today's temperatures are not unprecedented, and neither is melting polar ice. It doesn't require a PHD or a climate scientist to read about the history of Greenland.

There is a reason why the warmists refuse to release the source codes and data behind their temperature proxies. The proxies were created to match their pre-conceived theories of what the temperatures had to be.

Will the Washington Post editorial page, selection of what climate news to publish, and which climate data sources to use continue to act like the paid mouthpiece of the church of global warming?

The IPCC and AGW house of cards is crumbling. Will the Post be the last one to figure it out?

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 14, 2010 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am very pleased that the Post links to serious articles that conflict with the warmist agenda that is so prominent on your editorial pages and in your selection of what to publish.

How about some actual articles in the Post addressing issues like disappearing polar ice. The southern hemisphere sea ice is increasing and is well above recent average maximums. The northern hemisphere ice has been decreasing as claimed by the warmists, but is no where near on track to reach the ice free summer claimed by the alarmists; in all probability the northern ice will also increase with the waning effect of the El Nino.

How about addressing some of the issues raised on this web site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

They do most of the work in finding the data, all you would have to do is verify and report it.

Posted by: AGWsceptic99 | March 13, 2010 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company