Mann Bites Dog: Why ClimateGate was newsworthy.

[TZ]

As evidence for human-caused climate change has mounted, global warming denialists have responded by blaming the messengers. Climate researchers have endured abuse by bloggers, editorial writers, Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds. The attacks had become increasingly vile as the past decade, the hottest in human history, came to an end. Angry activists have called for firings and criminal investigations, and some prominent scientists have received physical threats.

Politicians have also gotten into the act. In 2005, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) referred to global warming as the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) sent a harassing letter to Michael Mann (now a professor at Pennsylvania State University) and his coauthors of the famous “hockey stick” paleoclimate paper, demanding that they drop everything to provide him with extensive documentation about what he claimed were “methodological flaws and data errors” in their work.

Denialists have attempted to call the science into question by writing articles that include fabricated data. They’ve improperly graphed data using tricks to hide evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They chronically misrepresent the careful published work of scientists, distorting all logic and meaning in an organized misinformation campaign. To an uncritical media and gullible non-scientists, this ongoing conflict has had the intended effect: it gives the appearance of a scientific controversy and seems to contradict climate researchers who have stated that the scientific debate over the reality of human-caused climate change is over (statements that have been distorted by denialists to imply the ridiculous claim that in all respects “the science is settled”).

http://news.discovery.com/earth/skeptical-inquirer-climategate.html





This is one of the BEST analysis of climate change deniers tactics I have yet to see.

[beardown]

1. Do you realize what you've done?

Now we'll get bombarded by a host of deniers denying they are attacking researchers. Denying squared. You've probably launched the global warming equivalent of the arms' race where I build a anti-anti-missile system to counter your anti-missile system.

[Viking12]

2. but, but, but they're 'sceptics' not deniers

:tinfoilhat:

[Jim__]

3. I agree - good article.

The one problem I have with it is the claim that there is no scientific debate:

Likewise, a competent high school physics student understands how the so-called greenhouse effect works and that conservation of energy is also settled science. It has been known for over a hundred years that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its infrared opacity, and when this happens, more energy from sunlight enters Earth’s atmosphere than escapes. The atmosphere must heat up on average. There is no scientific debate about this fact, and nobody has ever published a “zero-warming” theory to explain how it could be otherwise.

Richard Lindzen may be the chief of the climate change deniers; but he is highly qualified. I believe he also receives large sums of money from the oil industry. But he has published in scientific journals, and while he may not have published a "zero-warming" paper, I believe he has published peer-reviewed "cooling" papers on this. For instance (source):

The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Prof. Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.<1> This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an overall cooling effect. The consensus view is that increased sea surface temperature would result in increased cirrus clouds which would have the effect of warming the sea surface further and thus there would be positive feedback.

Other scientists have since tested the hypothesis. Some concluded that that there was simply no evidence supporting the hypothesis.<2> Others found evidence suggesting that increased sea surface temperature in the tropics did indeed reduce cirrus clouds but found that the effect was nonetheless a positive feedback rather than the negative feedback that Lindzen had hypothesized.<3><4> However, there has been some relatively recent evidence potentially supporting the hypothesis.<5> <6>

Reference 6 is to a paper published in 2009.

By far and away, most climatologists disagree with Lindzen; and he has incentives to deny climate change. I'm not sure that his opinion hasn't been bought. However, the danger in using words like no scientific debate and nobody has ever published is that it gives the deniers a toe-hold from which to attack the article.

[Viking12]

4. Lindzen's hypothesis is "venting" not "cooling"

He accepts there will be warming with elevated CO2 levels. However, he argues a magical 'iris' will whisk the excess energy out of the atmosphere into space moderating climate sensitivity. There is no empirical evidence to support his hypothesis.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked, recommended, bookmarked and I believe the final sentence is a nice summation.

of corporate media dysfunctionality.

"The very fact that Climategate was newsworthy is evidence that reporters hold scientists to a much higher standard than they hold denialists, even if they won’t admit it in their quest to report a controversy."

Thanks for the thread, TZ:thumbsup: