On the week’s shopw: Journalismgate, Cuccinelli strikes back, Prawngate, and the skeptic debunk of the week!
Irregular Climate is now accepting donations.
Feedback is always appreciated.
In the aftermath of the stolen CRU emails known as climategate, in which as several independent investigations found nothing nefarious, a larger scandal was revealed. Many people suspected that this scandal was real, but now that we have conclusive evidence that climategate was not the scandal the media made it out to be we have proof.
The scandal I am referring to is, Journalismgate.
It is the shoddy reporting, based on nothing more than rumour, or the claims made by people whose records should have alerted journalists that they were not to be trusted. Claims by deniers of corruption, of fabricated data, or suppression of dissenting views were all presented by the media as being true, with no attempts to place the email comments into context, and to dig deeper and determine what was actually true.
Cuccinelli Strikes back
Back at my alma mater, the University of Virginia, state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli continues to tilt against his windmill of climate change: he still wants to investigate climate scientist Michael Mann for possible fraud. As I’ve pointed out before, Cuccinelli is attacking Michael Manndespite Mann repeatedly being cleared of all wrongdoing. Cuccinelli subpoenaed UVa for records involving Mann, but the University filed an appeal saying (correctly) this would chill academic freedom.
The Daily Progress has an update: Cuccinelli won’t quit:
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued Tuesday that the University of Virginia must comply with his demand for a trove of documents related to the research of former UVa climate change scientist Michael Mann, saying that Mann’s academic freedom does not shield him from Cuccinelli’s probe into possible fraud.
Apparently it doesn’t shield him from frivolous lawsuits, either. Mann has been investigated quite thoroughly by several panels, and has been cleared of wrongdoing. In my opinion, Cuccinelli is on a fishing expedition, hoping to find anything to throw against Mann.
The skeptic debunk of the week
To properly understand what’s happening to our climate, you have to consider the full body of evidence. Most arguments that support climate skepticism have one thing in common – they neglect the full body of evidence and cherry pick just the select pieces of data that support a particular point of view. There is one argument that is so misleading – it requires 3 separate levels of cherry picking. This argument is “global warming stopped in 1998”
Cherry Pick #1: Select one particular temperature record
Cherry Pick #2: ignore what’s happening to the rest of the climate
Cherry Pick #3: Comparing single years rather than statistical trends