'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal



cientists from the University of East Anglia spawned what has hitherto become known as "Climategate – a mini media tempest that briefly provided climate change deniers with what they believed to be grist for their favorite mill: that climate change is some sort of worldwide conspiratorial scam. There was never a whole lot to hang a scandal on, but that didn’t stop the frenzy that pushed “Climategate” onto front pages and network news shows.

Of course, since then, the grownups have stepped back to the fore, and five independent investigations have, as Steve Benen points out, “concluded that the integrity of the science is entirely sound” and that the “deniers’ arguments were debunked.” Where’s the coverage, though? Last week, CJR’s Curtis Brainard put out a call:

Each of these [independent investigations] has, in turn, drawn significant coverage in mainstream media and independent blogs of all varieties and points of view (see round-ups here, here, and here for instance). But only a few brief articles have appeared in newspapers and magazines, and they were usually buried deep inside. It is not surprising that editors have been reluctant to highlight each and every report as it came along (lamentably, documents and letters of this sort are commonly dismissed as having little news value). However, journalists love a good trend, and, as the BBC’s Richard Black noted on this blog, these reports are “beginning to look like a pattern.” As such, the press (especially the American press) needs to give this story more comprehensive, high profile treatment.

Still using the term “denier”…how “objective”.

Don’t be shy–say what you really feel! :rolleyes:

As a former science writer surrounded by scientists and engineers, I do not believe one iota in anthropogenic climate change.

If people were as zealous about Holy Mother Church as they are about gaiaism, we would not be in this moral abyss.

Save souls, not the ‘climate.’

Not much of a story when GW alarmists are investiagted by fellow global wrming alarmists and surpirse, surprise find nothing wrong!. The leaked emails speak for themsleves. What they did was shine a spotlight on the fact the whole GW scare is based on manipulated data driven by a far Left political agenda.

No. Not at all. I know that this is the story that has been spoon fed to you by the right wing media. But the evidence points to just the opposite.

Again, we can go on and on about this, but you have provided another broad brush statement without supporting evidence. The fact of the matter is that there are scientists on both sides of this argument. The debate is not settled despite the folks on the left resorting to name calling (“deniers”) when they are not persuasive in their arguments.

Estesbob is right, the emails speak for themselves. Much like in the Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls back the curtain and Oz says “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, GW supporters are saying “Pay no attention to those leaked emails, pretend they don’t exist”

It does not look like you reviewed the provided links.


Ive read the emails and read the voluminus amount of evidence debunking Global Warming. They got caught ;lying and distorting data. No rational person is going to trust anything they say. You may want to dismiss that as being spoon fed but then as with discussing most issues with you its not possible as you deal almost exlusively in negative stereotypes of those who disagree with you and strawmam arguments.

To OP:

While some of the replies so far have been uncharitably snarky, your poor framing of the original post did not facilitate charitable discussion nearly as well as it could. I am sorry it has gone that way so far but do make note that you can improve how you affect these discussions (others have referred to this in less pleasant ways). That said, I will attempt to address the substance of the issue you raised.

We all know about agenda-driven journalism (even if many of us see it only some of the time). So leaving aside real and valid criticisms of such, there is an often overlooked issue which is a bane on nearly all journalism today and for the last several decades. Journalism wants a good story, and their best representation of that, for better or worse, is a template with a victim, a villain, and (if they’re lucky) a hero. So stories which are easy to fit into that template tend to get a lot of traction. Climategate fits it almost perfectly: taxpayers/public (victim), scientists/industry (villain), and (so-called) whistleblowers (hero). This is just what reporters salivate over. Now what about the (so-called) debunking? Does this fit this journalistic holy trinity? No, it is simply about the collapsing of the previous one, i.e., there is no story.

One sees this template in stories everywhere: product safety stories (including things like BP oil), medical scares, you name it. Consider this: the arguably most highly respected news organization in the world sic] came out with articles about the Pope about three months ago which factually, logically, and synthetically made a high school newspaper look like Pulitzer material. And yet (to my knowledge) have never been retracted. These stories had both things going -]for/-] against them: they played into the media outlet’s political agendas, and they fit this template conveniently well.

I responded to your post #5 which had no links. This link you provided here is the first time you linked to it in this thread. I didn’t have a time machine when I wrote my post to go forward in time to this this link.

How about this:

I did find it funny when I was searching for this report that one organization said that this report was not credible because a large number of the scientist have not had their findings published in peer-reviewed journals. One of the Climategate controversies was pro-GW scientists talking about how to keep dissenting scientists out of peer reviewed journals. Kind of like saying: “In order to be believable, you have to be published in journals we won’t let you get published in”. Talk about stacking the deck.

One more time…the earth has been warming since the last ice age. AND it is George Bush’s fault.


I believe Glen Beck an Sarah Palin are involved also

The ‘Climategate’ travesty
16 July 2010

Hopes for a bona fide investigation were dashed when the preliminary results were released in February. To the joy of climate alarmists, Penn State announced via press release that Mann was cleared of three of the four allegations against him (regarding falsification/suppression of data, deletion of e-mails/data and misuse of confidential information). But if one looks past the release and reads the committee’s report, it becomes obvious** the fix was in**.
Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers – so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.

… In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.


I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption… I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
Like the Watergate affair, the real scandal is not just the actual events under investigation but the subsequent cover-up. The ‘Climategate’ emails lifted the curtain on the deeply questionable and anti-scientific methods being employed to keep AGW theory going in the face of contrary evidence. But the investigation that followed has turned into a scandal of its own. It exposes how AGW theory is so deeply embedded into a scientific establishment which has far, far too much face to lose if it were to start telling the truth about this bogus ‘science’ – and thus it helps explain how a scam of the magnitude of AGW theory has been successfully perpetrated upon the world for so long.

The Huffingtonpost and NPR blogs: some respectable sources, those! :shrug:

The debate on whether or not mankind has contributed to Global Warming is over. The only legitimate debate is how big a role we’ve played. I’d say that the term “denier” is an accurate one. I’ve read numerous articles by various anti-AGW individuals who call themselves scientists and attempt to make their case by claiming that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. :rolleyes:

Over only for those who cant defend their position. Now that we know the alarmists fabricated and manipulated data the argument is back to square one.

The only thing trumped up around here is the whole anthropogenic global warming hysteria.

That’s nonsense on numerous levels. We can start with some very basic facts:

1.Greenhouse gasses cause increases in temperature

  1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas

  2. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution was approximately 280ppm

  3. The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere today is approximately 380ppm.

  4. There have been no natural events to account for the increase in the ratio of CO2

  5. Humans, through the burning of fossil fuels, have released CO2 into the atmosphere.

  6. The average global temperature has increased.

  7. Therefore humans are at least partially responsible for the increase in temperature.

Most of the above are seriously debated, and have been on here, with both sides presenting their experts and statistics in massive profusion. So, in reality, each of the premises, other than #6 are opinions, not absolute facts. #1 and #2 can be and, by some, are modified to “can be”, rather than “are”.

So, by the time one gets to #8, it’s a conclusion based on a number of opinions. As such, it can stand alone as credibly as set out above; that is, it’s a belief some have and some don’t.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.