November 21, 2009
The "Prestige Press"
Sarah Palin calls them the "Lamestream Media."
Mike Rosen calls them the "Dominant Liberal Establishment Media."
Brother jk calls them <heavenly music>The New York Times.</heavenly music>
Climate change conspirast Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" fame, calls them the "Prestige Press." This excerpt from one of the email thread archives that comprise Climategate definitely is one of the "things that make you go HMMMM."
Andrew Revkin to Michael Mann, Sep 29, 2009, 4:30 pm:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements about Yamal data-set selectivity. Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking journal publication for his deconstruct?
Michael Mann replies, Sep 29, 2009, 5:08 pm:
Hi Andy,I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don't think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of this, in Keith's absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
Revkin again, Sep 29, 2009, 5:18 pm:
thanks heaps.tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon. just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ... a little unclear . ?
I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions made over at climateaudit.org.....
I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks. peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?
One can almost see the "wink, wink" between the lines when Mann says, "...the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, RIGHT?"
The two of them certainly appear to be defending the standing of their sycophantic collection of science journals against any dissent - even from other peer-reviewed journals which may happen to be "discredited."
Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe Media and Blogging Posted by JohnGalt at November 21, 2009 3:56 PM
I think you guys are taking this one out of context mates.
Lets start with Revkin. I like Revkin. I am a regular reader of his blog. Lots of people in the climate sphere are not. They make nice with him, because he is a prominent outlet to mainstream America, but most don't like him. Problem is, he talks about skeptics too much. When scare studies have methodological problems, he points them out. He consistently highlights contrarian (and in particular, pro-adaptation) points of view. He has written three dozen posts on why alarmism destroys the environmental movement's credibility.
So the lefties like to bag on him. All the time. Take the blog post this e-mail chain refers to. Dozens in the climate sphere threw up their arms in protestation -- give McIntyre space to defend himself, in the New York Times? Outrageous. We should be ignoring deniers like these, not giving them a bully pulpit! And so on and so forth.
So the criticism of Revkin is more than a tad unfair. McIntyre, for what it is worth, never did take up the challenge. Lets pretend that 'sycophantic collection of science journals' accurately describes the environmental studies press for sake of argument. McIntyre is a statistician. He audits climate scientist's statistics. There is no reason he could not have gone to one of the larger statistics journals (who are not controlled by the climate cabal) and published a piece. That he has not done so hurts his case.
A final note -- I can't see the "wink, wink" you refer to. I simply see a man who is frustrated with the press for paying attention to something he deems dangerous and disingenuous. These are not evil environmentalists bent on hatching a secret plan to rule the world -- they are scientists, no better or worse than the rest of us. What is the name of that film Jk likes? "Not, Evil, Just Wrong", right? I think that title just about covers it.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 21, 2009 7:55 PMThank you for your insights tg. I will confess that I'd never read Revkin and your perspective on his motives is a valuable addition to those of Dr. Ball and Mr. Chesser in my previous post. But let me ask you, is it possible that Revkin "talks about skeptics too much" because he's the climate alarmists' point-man for discrediting skeptics in the blogosphere? I'm not asking you to make a judgement one way or the other, just whether or not it's a possibility.
And thank you for linking to the Revkin post that was referred to in the email thread I posted. I must give Revkin credit for printing McIntyre's response to Dr. Crowley's defensive challenge to 'see if you can reconstruct the data I did in some way you think is better.' In actuality, McIntyre was saying that the data are INSUFFICIENT for ANY such reconstruction. What is the sense of publishing a paper to say this? Can't we just talk about the scientific method without the de-facto censorship of science journal editors and reviewers? If Dr. Crowley has confidence in his work then why doesn't he explain why rather than call Mr. McIntyre "really tiresome?"
The other story being told by Climategate, possibly the bigger story than media bias, is the politicization of the scientific review process. You suggested that McIntyre could easily have made his criticisms more valid by publishing them in a statistics journal "not controlled by the climate cabal" but consider what the climate cabal had to say about statisticians: "While there is undoubtedly scope for statisticians to play a larger role in paleoclimate research, the large investment of time needed to become familiar with the scientific background is likely to deter most statisticians from entering this field." The veiled threat here to statisticians is, 'Go ahead and publish on climate science. We'll just discount your standing on the basis of years in the field.'
The "climate cabal's" hard-fought control over the relevant journals is sufficient that they are able to control what papers are included in IPCC reports:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In closing, Revkin's parting shot was, as colluded with Dr. Mann, to suggest that those who do not operate within the (rigged) peer-review process "are not to be trusted." This single *heavenly music* New York Times */heavenly music* suggestion embodies both of my criticisms at once.
Posted by: johngalt at November 22, 2009 10:48 AMWell played, lads.
I think the "bombshell" of the "Climategate" emails is to underscore what I have bored y'all with for years: the pro-AWG side may not be evil, but they are not participating in the scientific process. You don't have to get a paper published to contradict a paper. Science moves along as gruesomely as the NFL playoffs. If you publish, your work will be attacked fairly and unfairly and you are expected to defend it.
I posted a link last September about this mentality:
The leaked emails highlight this contempt for Popperian discovery. At the end of the day, whether in the sainted NYT or lowly Australian Sun, I don't think they'll change anybody's mind. They'll feed the deniers' case but the process is too abstract and arcane to dissuade believers.
Posted by: jk at November 22, 2009 11:47 AM
TG has a point: there is no smoking gun here of Dr. Hockey Stick or the NYT reporter trying to extort or directly kneecap a critic. However, I only see a trace of scientific curiosity. I see two professionals spending most of their time spinning, packaging and smearing by association.
This upholds my main criticism of the 'science' arm of the AGW movement from nearly the very beginning. They long ago shucked science for politics, notoriety, and ideology. I feel vindicated in this at the Royal Danish Society's response to the attempt at - in effect - defenestrating Dr. Lomborg by several hundred Danish scientists, whose terse judgment upholding Dr. Lomborg's status and ideas, essentially said "you all say you have degrees?"
I've spent years in academic review settings, and never seen anything quite like this, nor any scientist so worried about what the press may or may not "fall for." If Dr. Mann were truly confident in his findings, surely he'd have the confidence that that the truth would out, yes?
I'm also quite shocked that Dr. Hockey Stick is still listened to by any institution that regards itself reputable in a scientific sense, as much as if I saw some institute still giving prominence to Drs. Pons or Fleischmann.
Posted by: nanobrewer at November 22, 2009 5:53 PMFor what it's worth, "Lamestream media" was coined by Bernie Goldberg.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at November 23, 2009 1:04 PMThanks for that br. I knew Palin wasn't the first but I couldn't remember who was.
My favorite is still "Drive-By Media." It's such a perfect description of how they race in to shoot up a story however they like and leave it for others to come in later with the ambulance full of facts. Trouble is, the patient - in this case, objective reporting of the news - often dies anyway.
Posted by: johngalt at November 23, 2009 3:05 PMAny Bernie fans around here? To be fair, I think of him as "our Andrew Sullivan." His two books "Bias" and "Arrogance" were incredible for their seriousness, quality, and explosiveness. Game changing admissions from an inside whistleblower.
Like Sullivan, it probably hurts to lose all your friends. His hyper-partisan screeds that have followed tarnish the reputation and seriousness of the two masterpieces.
Too harsh me?
Posted by: jk at November 23, 2009 4:09 PMClimategate Foretold...
Posted by: Fran Manns at November 28, 2009 11:16 PM | What do you think? [8]“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.