I can’t find any media coverage of the UK’s official Government response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
I think that is because:
- It re-re-re-re-vindicates climate scientists, and since the media glossed over the first three, why start now?
- It didn’t involve anyone exploding.
The only reason I found out about this is because of the tireless reporting of BigCityLib, whose piece, “CRU Cleared Again” is reposted below:
CRU Cleared Again
…by the UK Gov, in their official Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The short version: CRU’s science is solid, but there are still some issues re the prompt handling of FOIA requests. The longer version is here. My favourite bit:
13. Openness and transparency should be the presumption. That said, there are a number of good reasons why it is not always possible or appropriate to make data available immediately or even at all. In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data (although there is the question of whether they could have gone back to national meteorological societies to get permission to release data).
And another favourite bit:
The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
[...]15. We agree with the Committee’s comments on the rights of scientists to comment informally on academic papers, noting that the scientific method relies on constructive challenge. We also note that the Muir Russell Review team investigated CRU scientists’ involvements in peer review, and concluded that none of the allegations investigated represented subversion of the peer-review process, nor an unreasonable attempt to influence the editorial policy of journals.”
…which kind of segues into my next topic, because the Gaurdian’s Fred Pearce thinks, wrongly, that CRU was “using underhand tactics to silence their critics”. He’s also calling for the head of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) chairman Rajendra Pachauri. You can read his arguments through the link above. I’m more sympathetic to the position of the Friends of the Earth:
So might journalists like Fred Pearce. In fact, since journalism feeds upon conflict (or its appearance), you can bet on it.
Earlier this year, the science journal Nature editorialized, “Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.” Apparently the rules of climate science street fight club only apply to the climate science side of things, since the anti-scientist disinformers can pretty much talk about anything they want and get coverage.
If anyone can find any media coverage of this, please post it.
This post has been updated with input from a wise commenter!
Related Posts:
- Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State “” time for some major media apologies and retractions
- Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I still say we should have pushed back harder from the start instead of the movements’ “ignore this and maybe it will go away” response.
How is this for framing:
“The scientists whose emails were stolen have been investigated no less than X times while the actual thievery has barely been investigated at all.”
Whodunnit? Why is the media so silent on the actual crime committed? Hell, why is the environmental movement silent on the same?
I keep my ear very close to the ground and I heard nothing about this until now.
Surpise, surprise– media trumpets a story and becomes the echo chamber for myths, distortions, and fallacious accusations against scientists, and then when they are vindicated, they do not display the same enthusiasm.
I read the report, it is hardly a white wash– they are quite justifiably critical of some aspects (e.g., dealing with FOI requests and openness).
BUT, on the accusations of scientific misconduct, they very clearly state that there is no evidence of that.
If I read the report correctly they seem to be suggesting that yet another inquiry is in the works?
In the mean time the planet warms, RSS (satellite MSU TLT data) show that the globe just experienced its warmest September on record.
Avoid the word “exonerated.” That implies that innocence could have been in doubt. Use “vindicated” instead.
[JR: Done!]
It was said in a previous discussion on this blog that the press has so much trouble addressing false, or fabricated controversies and calling one “side” out for not having a fact-based position.
But here’s an example of a report doing just that. Found randomly on CTV. The report repeated calls one side out as not talking factually.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20100928/census-long-form-opposition-100928/
[start from "Conservative colleagues raised points during the debate that have been contradicted in other arenas or do not match public information."]
So “mainstream” and privately controlled media talking about a fabricated controversy outing one side as fabricators has happened and therefore can happen.
Out of curiousity, who benefited most from the CRU Hack? I know deniers in general benefited, but who benefited most in terms of web traffic? A related question is who was first to report it?
The BBC has stopped reporting science while it reviews its impartiality:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/06/bbc-trust-science-impartiality-review
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/january/science_impartiality.shtml
It has also closed its last remaining science message board:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/F1951574?thread=7794074
Mapleleaf,
I think all the investigations are done. Remember, some of the text is taken from the “House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report”, which was written several months ago but refers to reports not yet, at the time, submitted.
The committee held some follow-ups in early Sept (8th I believe), but unless these give birth to something more, I think its all done in the UK.
@ 1 & 5 frank bi http://climategate.tk/ is collecting information.
We also note that the Muir Russell Review team investigated CRU scientists’ involvements in peer review, and concluded that none of the allegations investigated.
Should that be “…none of the allegations (need to be) investigated” or something like that?
Also, I note over on RealClimate they have a post on the latest Ken Cuccinelli insanity.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/cuccinelli-goes-fishing-again/
The UK Government response was carried at Bishop Hill’s blog, even though its contents wouldn’t have met with his approval.
the silent majority is literally silent. unfortunately, not talking of a subject doesn’t make it go away.
I really think it is a complete waste of time wondering why the capitalist mass media is so dishonest, disingenuous and biased in reporting on anthropogenic climate change. Our primary problem, from which all others flow, is that the inevitable consequences of the dominance of the capitalist paradigm of growth,no matter what the cost in ‘externalities’, forever, are global ecological collapse (which is not a problem for some dark, distant, dystopian future, but is here, right now)and the destruction of humanity, and a capitalist media’s first role is to defend that system, come what may.
In practice market capitalism is a totalitarian religion,and its high priests, the likes of Murdoch et al, do not tolerate deviance or thought crime. So the media coverage is deliberately perverted in favour of the destroyers and the industry of denialism that they have created to protect their money interest. As a species we have allowed our masters’ to choose profit and death over life. Making the tragedy even more pathetic, there is another species of denialists, who, while recognising the truth of ecological destruction (not to mention resource depletion, economic system collapse and the threat of geo-political chaos as the West sinks into the mire)refuse to acknowledge both the immediate gravity of our predicament, and the moral, spiritual and pathopsychological nature of those who we must defeat or our species is doomed. And I do mean defeat, because waiting for an awakening from ignorance,imbecility,viciousness and mendacity on the Right is akin to waiting for Godot. It is never going to happen. Until we realise that this is a fight to the death for humanity’s future, and that we must confront the Right head on, by all means necessary, then we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.Need I remind anyone that the other side, the side of mass death,knows no scruples, no remorse and no voice of conscience?
Dear Joe
You missed a part copy-pasting this quote:
“We also note that the Muir Russell Review team investigated CRU scientists’ involvements in peer review, and concluded that none of the allegations investigated.”
It goes on:
“…represented subversion of the peer-review process, nor an unreasonable attempt to influence the editorial policy of journals.”
[JR: Thanks!]
CRU cleared again AND:
Cuccinelli subpoenaing Mann’s climate science again:
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/10/cuccinellis-attack-climate-science-continues
Re #11, I wonder what spin Montford put on this report?
BigCityLib @7, thanks, and thanks too for your tireless efforts.
MapleLeaf #16 – go and take a look? Or is that site off-limits?
Roddy, actually I have his site bookmarked, but I learned a long time ago now that going there was a waste of time. But yes, that does sound lazy doesn’t it? I’ll go and have a peek when I have time.
What do you think of this web site?
(Unofficial) Record-breaking temperature across the Globe
by Robert Hart and Ryan Maue
http://coolwx.com/record/
@#19: That’s a good site. I can mouse over each dot on the maps and get a complete description of the record. The color-coding and definitions of “close”, etc. improve its utility.