Climategate - the Infamy of the Lamestreet Media

Where is all the professional journalism on climategate? You would think that the mainstream media (from now on to be referred to as the lamestreet media) would be all over this.

The media hacks who have been cheerleaders for global warming propaganda and IPCC disinformation should be livid that they fell for this story; livid that they where duped.

They should also be livid at themselves for their lack of professionalism in not researching into the scam.

There has been ample resources on the Internet exposing the shaky science, but the vast majority of the lamestreet media has been behaving like groupies at a rock concert waving their panties on the air.

Following my report on the CBC earlier today, I did a quick Google search on some major news outlets today (Nov 30).

The Washington Post
The Washington Post only had 3 pages (one of them was just a duplicated reference) of these 3 pages, 1 was a blog entry asking why no climategate coverage, that left 2:

• Juliet Eilperin - made lame excuses and generally supported the phony global-warming science in her piece In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes  

• Howard Kurtz - one letter on climategate near the end of a very long roundup Media Backtalk; Mr. Kurtz does not give justice to the letter and is somewhat dismissive. The entry is dated Monday, November 30, 2009 and yet Kurtz can only cite 2 entries at the Washington Post, here's the letter, from a gentleman in Kalamazoo:
  

from Kalamazoo, Mich: Mr. Kurtz,
It has been suggested that one way media show their bias is to diminish the importance of stories that don't fit the script, perhaps by burying them, or to ignore the stories altogether. Against that backdrop I find the coverage of the climate e-mails story (called in some quarters "climategate") quite revealing. These thousands of e-mails came from the English academy which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

Putting aside the question of whether global warming is real or not, or if it is, whether it is caused primarily by man or not, the e-mails appear to reveal a profound corruption of the scientific process. Of course, the very validity of scientific inquiry is based on the assumption that scientific processes are followed, and here it is beyond question that they were not.

And yet, at the same time the Obama administration stands ready to commit the country to billions of dollars in expenditures to "fight" global warming, the media largely appear to be dodging this story. Why?

Of course, it is possible that the science is valid. But if it were, why the need to suppress contrary views? Why the effort to ostracize scientific journals which published differing opinions?

The Post has penned several editorials which gloss over the issue. Can anyone in your shop not see what a failure this is on the Post's part? No sense of inquiry, no sense of healthy skepticism. Instead, just a complete buy-in to what may be bogus science.

Howard Kurtz:

I see two news stories about the e-mails in The Washington Post, as well as editorial and opinion pieces. So we have hardly ignored it. There was criticism of a NYT reporter who blogged that he wouldn't report the content of the e-mails because they had been obtained by hackers. This doesn't prove by a long shot that climate change is "bogus science," but it's a huge embarrassment to the scientists involved.

No Mr Kurtz, the Washington Post did not completely ignore it - but this is a huge story, but you can only cite 2 entries.

2 news stories is not much since the story broke at least 10 days earlier (there are reports as early as Nov 20, perhaps even earlier).

this is a huge story, but the Washington Post can only cite 2 news entries.

Hadley CRU was the premier source for climate data in the global warming world, with a huge budget to  research global temperature changes, it is up to the global warming theorists to prove the case, which they have not done to date. But when some of the principle scientists for the theories are caught lying and falsifying the data there should be some alarm bells going off in the media; the journalistic antennae of the reporters should be tingling with this massive story - but apparently they are not - not even mildly stimulated it seems.

...  it is up to the global warming theorists to prove their case, which they have not done to date

I think the point of the gentleman from Kalamazoo, Mich is proven by the reply of Mr. Kurtz - Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum - "which was to be demonstrated").

Returning to Juliet Eilperin's piece thee ae a number of links to other climate stories at the end of her piece, but these were generally moderately or very favourable to global warming theories. From an article titled Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center we see this reference: 

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

Ms. Eilperin gives Professor Mann the benefit of the doubt by publishing his explanation concerning the word "trick";  very commendable to give all sides of the story, but she fails to note that the word "trick" in the context of "hide" a trend in temperatures clearly shows intent to falsify the results so they looked btter from a global-warming point of view. Where was Ms. Eilperin's journalistic antennae?  

 But, as shown here on Lux et Veritas in the post: Climategate - It Had to Happen, Professor Mann's hockey stick graph was debunked by a paper in 2003 by Canadians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. But the lamestreet media chose not to investigate but stick with Al Gore and Davis Suzuki.

As I said, there has been ample reason for suspicion of global warming theories, many reports from well-respected scientists, but the lamestream media chose to ignore them.

AMMENDMENT
I just found this piece which is a gold-star for the Washington Post - oh sorry it is the the Washington Times - ok Washington Post - no gold star for you - gold star  goes to ... The Washington Times.

Washington Times - The global-cooling cover-up


Gurth Whitaker
Calgary, Alberta