What Fresh Hell Is This?

June 14, 2010

Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel

Some days two wingnut narratives overlap over there at Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review. Today, my friends, is just such a day.

Here's the editorial:
The longer NASA resists releasing its climate researchers' e-mails, the stronger suspicions become about what those e-mails say and why it's stonewalling.

Nearly three years after filing his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is suing NASA to obtain documents promised but never delivered.

Mr. Horner expects the e-mails, mainly from scientists working with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to further discredit the blame-mankind-for-global-warming crowd -- much like the Climategate e-mails leaked from Britain's Climatic Research Unit that showed data manipulation to conform to climate-change orthodoxy. He says NASA might be stalling to keep embarrassing information out of upcoming Senate debate on climate-change legislation.

NASA says Horner's inquiry is just one of many it's fielding and the volume of information he's seeking poses "just a herculean task." But it's had years to complete that task, begging the question of just what it's hiding -- and why.

Clearly, NASA is siding with the sort of suspect "science" that rightly has undermined climate alarmists' credibility -- and against the taxpaying public's right to know about work it paid for.
First things first, as my dad always used to say. While we're discussing "credibility" shouldn't we point out how much Scaife cash is used to support the Competitive Enterprise Institute? Recently there's been:
  • $300,000 from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2008.
  • $300,000 from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2007.
  • $350,000 from the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2006.
Additionally, Mediamatters reports that about $2.25 million flowed from Richard Mellon Scaife controlled foundations to the CEI over the last few decades.

n a piece about how an organization is (supposedly) withholding information it's almost too delicious to see what the Trib withholds - you know, if we're talking about "credibility" and everything.

Next stop on the "credibility train" is this. Newsmax is another Scaife-owned "news" source. Take a look at these two paragraphs:
Nearly three years after his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he will file a lawsuit Thursday to force NASA to turn over documents the agency has promised but has never delivered.

Mr. Horner said he expects the documents, primarily e-mails from scientists involved with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), will be yet another blow to the science behind global warming, which has come under fire in recent months after e-mails from a leading British research unit indicated scientists had manipulated some data.
Notice anything? Notice how similar they are (point for point) with the second and third paragraphs from the Trib's editorial?

Can't these guys write anything original? Or since Scaife owns both "news" sources is it OK to plagiarize? You know, if we're talking "credibility" and everything.

Now onto the incredible core of the piece:
...much like the Climategate e-mails leaked from Britain's Climatic Research Unit that showed data manipulation to conform to climate-change orthodoxy.
Actually they didn't show anything of the sort. From the Science and Technology Committee from the House of Parliament:
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.
Um, and that Scientific Appraisal Panel?
We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.
So the core of the Trib's piece it's just, like so much else on the editorial page, empty spin.

Some days it's just too easy.


Heir to the Throne said...

Some days it's just too easy.
Every time Dayvoe criticizes the Tribune-Review funding he just cites the Moveon/SEIU funded Media Matters.

I figured you just paste in the same spin from a previous post like a Media Matters hack/Senior Fellow.

Heir to the Throne said...

Also from the Science and Technology Committee from the House of Parliament on 'Climategate' inquiry
in March at the same time as the report Dayvoe linked to

The first of several British investigations into the e-mails leaked from one of the world's leading climate research centers has largely vindicated the scientists involved.

The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming—two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact," adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity."...

Lawmakers stressed that their report—which was written after only a single day of oral testimony—did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending.


Translation: we found nothing too terribly damning... mostly because we were careful not to look very hard. Please, please, please be sure to notice all the qualifiers we were careful to insert so we don't look like we were covering anything up when more in-depth investigations reach opposite conclusions.

EdHeath said...

HTTP, you (an anonymous commenter) yourself lift from the blog Vox Popoli (with an anonymous blogger). Can you tell me the scientific/educational qualifications of that blogger?

Meanwhile, the BBC reports on another panel clearing the CRU. But of course the BBC has a poor reputation as a news organization.

You should read this. The oil spill is just the latest result of our addiction to oil, along with contributions to climate change and in fact 9/11 itself. If we all voluntarily drove no faster than 55 mph on the highway, and those who could commuted by bus or bike at least part way, we could make a great contribution towards reducing the effects of climate change. If we don't, then because of people like you we can look forward to European levels of gas taxes (i.e. 100%). Thanks in advance for making us all miserable.

Heir to the Throne said...

Vox Popoli (with an anonymous blogger)
Not so Anonymous
Theodore Beale
Truth to tell I do not agree with Vox on everything. He is a birther and writes for World Nut Daily so I don't expect him to convince you of anything.

BTW linking to a article from Thomas "Why can't the US be more like China"
does not convince me of anything.

EdHeath said...

Well, HTTT, I will take your word for it about this Beale being the author of Vox Popoli. From the Wikipedia entry (I thought you or some conservative commenter thought Wikipedia is unreliable) Beale hardly sounds like an expert in climate science. Plus you are telling me you have doubts about him, yet you print what he said about climate science verbatim. Are you telling me Beale is qualified to evaluate the efficacy of the research being done at the CRU of the University of East Anglia? He is the gold standard for scientific commentary for conservatives?

As for Thomas Friedman, three things: first, National Review might have its own agenda in trying to discredit Friedman. Second, I looked again at the column - not a word about China in it. Third, did you actually read the thing?

The fact that instead of discussing the logic in the column you choose to discredit Friedman tells me you have no answer for he and his friend say.

You complain that Dayvoe is citing a stale single source, yet you can't be bothered to respond to a column written on Friday. You are not exactly exposing bias there, but I suppose it is better to show contempt than actually make an argument.

Megaan said...

Excellent blog.

Fancy the content I have seen so far and I am your regular reader of your blog.

I follow your blog and i like your way of posting.

I have added http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/ in my blog http://news-updations.blogspot.com/.

I am pleased to see my blog in your blog list.

Hope to see a positive reply.

Thanks for visiting my blog as well !

Waiting for your reply friend !!!!!

rich10e said...

don't you get tired of running this dead horse.....same ole blah blah... scaife/trib...heritage/scaife...this when you know that your far left friends do the same thing daily....as I told ED Heath, I do ride a bike everywhere i go...if your all so energy concerned...shut off the modem,boot off the computer,turn out the lights,and climb in a cave.....

EdHeath said...

Well, once again, good on you for riding your bike. But how is this a "dead horse"? Dayvoe is commenting on an editorial ran on Monday, not something from last year. Of course, if liberals should never criticize any conservative, or say anything about anything, you are right, we should just live in a cave. While the world is destroyed by conservatives.

rich10e said...

Eddie eddie eddie,
if ya don't get it...i don't have the time...riding my bike