77. HIGHLIGHT by Laurie Dougherty, Brookline, MA, December 5th, 2009, 11:42 p.m.
Everyone who has a sincere interest in what is happening to our climate should listen to the conference call [click here to listen to the conference call] hosted by the Center for American Progress with Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Oppenheimer and Joe Romm. It's a breath of fresh air in the middle of so much acrimony and misinformation.
Andy, instead of giving the last word on this conference call to Roger Pielke, Jr., perhaps you could have the decency to report what the scientists actually said about the fact that CAP (yes, liberal CAP) hosted the call: CAP invited them. You wasted your own turn on a throwaway question about why they were holding their conversation through CAP and then didn't even report the response. Also, the questioners on the call came from various media outlets including the NYT, Newsweek, [CBS] (if I remember right), a couple of science publications, at least one conservative publication that I can recall (National Review), etc., most of whom asked useful questions that elicited useful responses.
The real "journalistic tribalism" shows up in the fact that the NYT has not done a thorough investigative expose of the aggressive campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry and right wing media to spread confusion and disinformation. If you think DeSmogBlog has something worthwhile to say, why don't you highlight their efforts to bring this campaign of FUD to light? So much easier to do the "fair and balanced" "he said she said" trick and leave the real investigative work and gutsy journalism to the bloggers.
Reports are coming to light about break-ins at other climate research institutes. Along these lines, something has been bugging me that I hadn't paid too much attention to when I first saw something about it it, so I took another look. In July 2009, Steve McIntyre claimed that he got hold of station data from CRU from an anonymous source, even though CRU had carefully explained the confidentiality and diplomatic issues involved in their arrangements with meteorological reporting offices in other countries. McIntyre used the word "mole" to describe the source of the data. Now maybe this was just a trick of language -- casual, metaphorical or humorous usage (although there seems to be little tolerance for anything other than the most literal interpretations of what other people say).
Maybe McIntyre has just read too many John LeCarre novels, but a "mole" is not a whistle blower. A "mole" is a spy -- either someone planted in an agency by a hostile entity or someone already within an agency who is induced by a hostile entity to collect and turn over information. Quite often it turns out that the inducement is money. So was this mole paid, and if so how much for how long and by whom? And did this mole also release of the file called FOIA? (Anyone can call a file by any name.)
Meanwhile, after a record breaking high temperature earlier this week and the latest date of first frost in Boston since records have been kept, it's snowing on the still-in-bloom impatiens and pansies on the porch and the geraniums across the street.
http://www.boston.com...
Andy, instead of giving the last word on this conference call to Roger Pielke, Jr., perhaps you could have the decency to report what the scientists actually said about the fact that CAP (yes, liberal CAP) hosted the call: CAP invited them. You wasted your own turn on a throwaway question about why they were holding their conversation through CAP and then didn't even report the response. Also, the questioners on the call came from various media outlets including the NYT, Newsweek, [CBS] (if I remember right), a couple of science publications, at least one conservative publication that I can recall (National Review), etc., most of whom asked useful questions that elicited useful responses.
The real "journalistic tribalism" shows up in the fact that the NYT has not done a thorough investigative expose of the aggressive campaign on the part of the fossil fuel industry and right wing media to spread confusion and disinformation. If you think DeSmogBlog has something worthwhile to say, why don't you highlight their efforts to bring this campaign of FUD to light? So much easier to do the "fair and balanced" "he said she said" trick and leave the real investigative work and gutsy journalism to the bloggers.
Reports are coming to light about break-ins at other climate research institutes. Along these lines, something has been bugging me that I hadn't paid too much attention to when I first saw something about it it, so I took another look. In July 2009, Steve McIntyre claimed that he got hold of station data from CRU from an anonymous source, even though CRU had carefully explained the confidentiality and diplomatic issues involved in their arrangements with meteorological reporting offices in other countries. McIntyre used the word "mole" to describe the source of the data. Now maybe this was just a trick of language -- casual, metaphorical or humorous usage (although there seems to be little tolerance for anything other than the most literal interpretations of what other people say).
Maybe McIntyre has just read too many John LeCarre novels, but a "mole" is not a whistle blower. A "mole" is a spy -- either someone planted in an agency by a hostile entity or someone already within an agency who is induced by a hostile entity to collect and turn over information. Quite often it turns out that the inducement is money. So was this mole paid, and if so how much for how long and by whom? And did this mole also release of the file called FOIA? (Anyone can call a file by any name.)
Meanwhile, after a record breaking high temperature earlier this week and the latest date of first frost in Boston since records have been kept, it's snowing on the still-in-bloom impatiens and pansies on the porch and the geraniums across the street.
http://www.boston.com...
Link: http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/roundup-copenhagen-and-climategate/?permid=77#comment77
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment