Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Clark Hoyt, New York Times Public Editor:
As world leaders prepare to meet tomorrow in Copenhagen to address global warming, skeptics are pointing to e-mail hacked from a computer server at a British university as evidence that the conference may be much ado about nothing. They say the e-mail messages show a conspiracy among scientists to overstate human influence on the climate — and some accuse The Times of mishandling the story.
:
Although The Times was among the first to report on the e-mail, in a front-page article late last month, and has continued to write about the issue almost daily in the paper or on its Web site, readers have raised a variety of complaints:Some say Andrew Revkin, the veteran environmental reporter who is covering what skeptics have dubbed “Climategate,” has a conflict of interest because he wrote or is mentioned in some of the e-mail messages that the University of East Anglia says were stolen. Others wondered why The Times did not make the e-mail available on its Web site, and scoffed at an explanation by Revkin in a blog post that they contain “private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye.” What about the Pentagon Papers? they asked.
:
The biggest question is what the messages amount to — an embarrassing revelation that scientists can be petty and defensive and even cheat around the edges, or a major scandal that undercuts the scientific premise for global warming. The former is a story. The latter is a huge story. And the answer is tied up in complex science that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts.
:
Goode, his editor, said: “We here at The Times are not scientists. We don’t collect the data or analyze it, and so the best we can do is to give our readers a sense of what the prevailing scientific view is, based on interviews with scientists” and the expertise of reporters like Revkin.
Tom J (33):
The defense that, “We here at The Times are not scientists,” is specious. You are also not generals, physicians, nor accountants. You certainly don’t hesitate to aggressively investigate and question war planning, mammogram recommendations, or Bernie Madoff. You sound like an air-headed Barbie doll lamenting how hard science is.
Jason (#43):
I’d suggest that there are two key problems with the New York Times coverage, one of which you repeated here:
1. It is interesting to know that skeptics _believe_ that the emails “show a conspiracy among scientists to overstate human influence on the climate”. It would have been much more interesting to learn that the emails contain passages like this: “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
I’m not saying that reaction to the emails isn’t important, but shouldn’t the first priority be describing the controversial emails? Reaction can come later.
2. You say that the emails were “stolen”. Andy has repeatedly characterized them as having been stolen by hackers. There is a notable absence of evidence supporting this claim. The organization of the file itself strongly suggests that it was generated within UEA by somebody in an official capacity. Under UK law, leaking it may very well have been permissible depending on the circumstances.
I recognize that somebody else may have chosen your headline “Stolen E-Mail, Stoking the Climate Debate”, but it is unfortunate nonetheless.
Mike Zarowitz (#47):
Models definitely do help in understanding a situation and are very important in forming testable hypotheses.
However, the more useful models depend on plotting one’s data and then drawing the curves, not drawing the curves and then plotting the data.
illustrator (#50):
It does not matter who released or exposed the e-mails. They are out. They are factual.
The e-mails expose fraud, corruption and a conspiracy to perpetrate this global warming fraud.The secondary big story in all this is the cover up by main stream media (NY Times) and politicians to hide the truth that these e-mails expose.
Those are chosen more-or-less randomly. Hoyt was rightfully handed his own ass cheeks on a platter.
Me:
D’Jever notice? We all who are not scientists, seem to enjoy a perfect license to side with the alarmists. It’s only when we show some willingness to listen to something offered by the skeptics that we have exceeded the limitations of our knowledge…and, apparently, caused an offense against some unnamed deity.
Yes. I said “deity.” That’s what I mean.
Hat tip to American Digest.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.