The incident you linked illuminates the exact problem in modern journalism that "the news" never has to check its sources and can get away with reporting bullshit that either never happened or that never happened in the way it was reported. We all know that sensationalism and fear-mongering sell the most newspapers and generate the most downloads/forwards, but it still doesn't excuse "the news" from slandering people without any recourse. We can sue the bastards, but that doesn't change the original story or make it any less searchable online.
It also doesn't change the fact that most of the people who know the truth about any given story are under gag orders and unable to correct the inaccuracies (aka, lies) printed about them. Most of these end up reprinted perpetually and passed off as "fact" by people who don't question the infallibility of the printed word. 10 years from now I guarantee people will continue to cite newspaper articles from last year as "evidence" against Global Warming, just as people continue to use a retracted, disgraced "study" conducted by a doctor with a financial stake in his article to justify anti-vaccination hysteria.
I haven't actually met him, just read his journal. I couldn't say one way or the other about his mental capacities (I understand he draws a comic about cats, and from what I've seen, he's slightly better at it than I am), but the dude posts a lot of interesting and entertaining shit.
I haven't had a chance to read the entire 160 pages of the review itself (http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf), but here's a bit of the executive summary I found interesting (sorry for shitty C&P):
The University of East Anglia commissioned two inquiries. The first led by Lord Oxburgh, into the science being undertaken at CRU, has already reported. This document is the report of the second inquiry – The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review – which examines the conduct of the scientists involved and makes recommendations to the University of East Anglia. Our inquiry addresses a number of important allegations that were made following the e-mail release.
6. The allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists, such as their handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results. 7. The allegations also include the assertion that actions were taken to promote a particular view of climate change by improperly influencing the process of advising policy makers. Therefore we have sought to understand the significance of the roles played by those involved from CRU and of the influence they had on the relevant outcomes. 8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted. It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct. 10. In addressing the allegations about CRU‘s impact on climate science, we sought evidence to place these into perspective: On handling global temperature data, we went to global primary sources and tested how data was handled. On tree-ring temperature reconstructions, we looked at the overall picture painted in Chapter 6 of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2007 (AR4) and examined the influence of CRU. On peer review, we sought independent input (from the Editor of The Lancet) on how the system works, to provide a context for our judgement. On influencing the IPCC process, we sought advice from the Review editors on the role individual contributors can play.
Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. 14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. 15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
In summary, I'm tending to agree with what CB said, above, especially given the stridency of the reporting of this particular issue by political figures and media outlets that I trust rather less than others (you can tell my reading of this has affected my speech, because normally I'd just call Dubya and Faux News nine kinds of asshole). :-)
I happened to catch it before the author (old, old buddy of mine, who I recently saw on another friend's lj) deleted it.
Summary paraphrase:
"1. I've met Flemco. He is, in my opinion, retarded.
2. The study lacks peer review, so I'm questioning its scientific rigor.
3. I believe it likely that there will be vitriolic responses re: Item 2, which is unfortunate, so I'm probably going to delete this."
All in all, I was surprised when it vanished during the composition of my reply. Since I don't have comments emailed to me, the original is lost to the aether, but it was, in the main, fairly mild, though taking a position essentially contrary to yours.
I was speaking of my own experience. Due to a continuing gag order I'm not at liberty to give details online. But I will say that it continues to piss me off that none of us who are involved in [said incident] are allowed to correct the huge, glaring inaccuracies spread by the press. I'm also pissed off that the press is allowed to continue to print said inaccuracies without facing any kind of retribution or responsibility for their actions. It also pisses me off when people (sometimes people on my own friends list) use links to the articles in question to "prove" the validity of claims that counteract the truth.
I've found out the hard way that a reporter can say anything an editor will let them say without any legal recourse. A slander conviction is difficult because the plaintiff has to prove the defendant intended financial harm specifically on the plaintiff. A reporter/"activist" on a crusade against [insert item here] is protected from the law by the "it's nothing person" defense, especially when this reporter does the same thing to other people in the name of being against [insert item here]. Very often scientists studying hot button issues get screwed by this and it's propagated by an ignorant public who wants to believe the "scandal" and say "gotcha" to scientists whom they distrust. The truth is often far less sensational and therefore ignored by the public. No one ever reads the retraction unless the retraction itself is a scandal.
Speaking of which. I've been wondering. During the "Blizzard of 2009" a whole bunch of people said "this is proof that Global Warming doesn't exist!" Now it's over 100 F in those same cities. Yet we're not hearing from those people at all. Curious, isn't it?
The only posts I have intentionally deleted here have been spam. Maybe a dozen times in the life of the journal. I don't pull punches, and don't expect any to be pulled. On the rare occasions where I say, "Play nice," I mean it.
I may have excised something because it shared personally identifying info (phone number, etc) for someone who didn't post it, or didn't want it posted. That latter may have happened three times, tops.
I've actually had to delete comments from trolls and/or friends mentioning the specific incident for which I have a gag order in unlocked posts. It has made it to some friends-only posts, but only peripherally.
*nod* I'm not supposed to directly speak ill of my employer or our clients, but bitching about workplace frustrations is fairly universal.
It's my firm belief that if I'm speaking to someone who does not work at my company, I'm either talking with a vendor, being annoyed by a survey-taker, gently abusing a salesperson, or, if I'm speaking with a client, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. :-)
Yeah, you pretty much hit it on the head. It's not so much that it's not a peer review, so much as it is not an independent review. I have as much faith in it as I have faith in an internal BP review. And it's such an unnecessary review at that. The leaked emails speak for themselves. They're gaming the peer-reviewed journals, they're upset that the evidence for global warming isn't working out, they're talking about how to choose statistical models to better fit their a priori conclusions, they're going on about how to circumvent freedom of information inquiries... I mean, if it walks like gross scientific malfeasance and it talks like gross scientific malfeasance.... it doesn't matter how they try to white-wash it.
The big conclusion to draw from the CRU emails is that they admit, in the emails, that they do not have solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If it was there, they wouldn't need all the dirty little tricks they're trying to pull. And you, basically, need to be a retard not to notice that. Ergo, James Grant.
SO, I typed it up, posted it and immediately regretted it. I just don't need the distraction right now of even a gentlemanly debate on the subject. Especially since it's the internet, no one learns anything or gives an inch and after two or three exchanges we're just calling each other pigfuckers.
So, I deleted it. No harm, no foul. Just don't take it personally or anything, okay?
And I would really like to see pictures of those new kitties.
no worries, man. really. i was just surprised that you retracted it while I was skimming the original report and crafting a quick reply.
as i said, i don't know JG, and i've never met JG; i just like the flavor of the links and vitriol he throws on the wall most of the time. if i was mildly batshit and self-employed and had more tinfoil to use for hats, i might sound similar on occasion. :-)
there are about four subjects i'll take personally and light up any and everyone for doing - disrespect towards friends and family, religious proselytization, bigotry, and parroting the more onerous bullshit championed by right-wing talking heads/points (seriously, I had to kind of flame *my dad* for forwarding me too much jingoistic teabag BS)...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ninetydegrees![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
The incident you linked illuminates the exact problem in modern journalism that "the news" never has to check its sources and can get away with reporting bullshit that either never happened or that never happened in the way it was reported. We all know that sensationalism and fear-mongering sell the most newspapers and generate the most downloads/forwards, but it still doesn't excuse "the news" from slandering people without any recourse. We can sue the bastards, but that doesn't change the original story or make it any less searchable online.
It also doesn't change the fact that most of the people who know the truth about any given story are under gag orders and unable to correct the inaccuracies (aka, lies) printed about them. Most of these end up reprinted perpetually and passed off as "fact" by people who don't question the infallibility of the printed word. 10 years from now I guarantee people will continue to cite newspaper articles from last year as "evidence" against Global Warming, just as people continue to use a retracted, disgraced "study" conducted by a doctor with a financial stake in his article to justify anti-vaccination hysteria.
EOR (end of mini-rant)
(no subject)
I haven't had a chance to read the entire 160 pages of the review itself (http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf), but here's a bit of the executive summary I found interesting (sorry for shitty C&P):
The University of East Anglia commissioned two inquiries. The first led by Lord Oxburgh, into the science being undertaken at CRU, has already reported. This document is the report of the second inquiry – The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review – which examines the conduct of the scientists involved and makes recommendations to the University of East Anglia. Our inquiry addresses a number of important allegations that were made following the e-mail release.
6. The allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists, such as their handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results.
7. The allegations also include the assertion that actions were taken to promote a particular view of climate change by improperly influencing the process of advising policy makers. Therefore we have sought to understand the significance of the roles played by those involved from CRU and of the influence they had on the relevant outcomes.
8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU
scientists have acted. It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct.
10. In addressing the allegations about CRU‘s impact on climate science, we sought evidence to place these into perspective:
On handling global temperature data, we went to global primary sources and
tested how data was handled.
On tree-ring temperature reconstructions, we looked at the overall picture
painted in Chapter 6 of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2007
(AR4) and examined the influence of CRU.
On peer review, we sought independent input (from the Editor of The Lancet)
on how the system works, to provide a context for our judgement.
On influencing the IPCC process, we sought advice from the Review editors
on the role individual contributors can play.
Findings
13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
In summary, I'm tending to agree with what CB said, above, especially given the stridency of the reporting of this particular issue by political figures and media outlets that I trust rather less than others (you can tell my reading of this has affected my speech, because normally I'd just call Dubya and Faux News nine kinds of asshole). :-)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Summary paraphrase:
"1. I've met Flemco. He is, in my opinion, retarded.
2. The study lacks peer review, so I'm questioning its scientific rigor.
3. I believe it likely that there will be vitriolic responses re: Item 2, which is unfortunate, so I'm probably going to delete this."
All in all, I was surprised when it vanished during the composition of my reply. Since I don't have comments emailed to me, the original is lost to the aether, but it was, in the main, fairly mild, though taking a position essentially contrary to yours.
(no subject)
I've found out the hard way that a reporter can say anything an editor will let them say without any legal recourse. A slander conviction is difficult because the plaintiff has to prove the defendant intended financial harm specifically on the plaintiff. A reporter/"activist" on a crusade against [insert item here] is protected from the law by the "it's nothing person" defense, especially when this reporter does the same thing to other people in the name of being against [insert item here]. Very often scientists studying hot button issues get screwed by this and it's propagated by an ignorant public who wants to believe the "scandal" and say "gotcha" to scientists whom they distrust. The truth is often far less sensational and therefore ignored by the public. No one ever reads the retraction unless the retraction itself is a scandal.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I may have excised something because it shared personally identifying info (phone number, etc) for someone who didn't post it, or didn't want it posted. That latter may have happened three times, tops.
(no subject)
(no subject)
It's my firm belief that if I'm speaking to someone who does not work at my company, I'm either talking with a vendor, being annoyed by a survey-taker, gently abusing a salesperson, or, if I'm speaking with a client, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. :-)
(no subject)
And it's such an unnecessary review at that. The leaked emails speak for themselves. They're gaming the peer-reviewed journals, they're upset that the evidence for global warming isn't working out, they're talking about how to choose statistical models to better fit their a priori conclusions, they're going on about how to circumvent freedom of information inquiries... I mean, if it walks like gross scientific malfeasance and it talks like gross scientific malfeasance.... it doesn't matter how they try to white-wash it.
The big conclusion to draw from the CRU emails is that they admit, in the emails, that they do not have solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If it was there, they wouldn't need all the dirty little tricks they're trying to pull. And you, basically, need to be a retard not to notice that. Ergo, James Grant.
SO, I typed it up, posted it and immediately regretted it. I just don't need the distraction right now of even a gentlemanly debate on the subject. Especially since it's the internet, no one learns anything or gives an inch and after two or three exchanges we're just calling each other pigfuckers.
So, I deleted it. No harm, no foul. Just don't take it personally or anything, okay?
And I would really like to see pictures of those new kitties.
(no subject)
as i said, i don't know JG, and i've never met JG; i just like the flavor of the links and vitriol he throws on the wall most of the time. if i was mildly batshit and self-employed and had more tinfoil to use for hats, i might sound similar on occasion. :-)
there are about four subjects i'll take personally and light up any and everyone for doing - disrespect towards friends and family, religious proselytization, bigotry, and parroting the more onerous bullshit championed by right-wing talking heads/points (seriously, I had to kind of flame *my dad* for forwarding me too much jingoistic teabag BS)...
oh, and twilight.