Now on ScienceBlogs: Oldest Human-Made Object in Space
Leakegate: Is that true, or did you read it in the The Times?
Jonathan Leake has been caught exaggerating yet again, this time about a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
« It's always bad news for the IPCC | Main | The Australian's War on Science 48: Bats aren't bugs »
Category: Leakegate
Posted on: March 15, 2010 4:22 AM, by Tim Lambert
Two contradictory stories describing the same adjudication: The Sunday Times
Ed Miliband's adverts banned for overstating climate change
vs The Guardian
Climate change adverts draw mild rebuke from advertising watchdog
One way to determine which story is more accurate is to do what anarchist does and carefully read the adjudication. But the shortcut to the truth is to note that the first story was written by Jonathan Leake.
Further coverage of the Leakegate scandal is at John Quiggin's.
Politicsdenialism blog 02.14.2012
respectful insolence 02.14.2012
uncertain principles 02.13.2012
confessions of a science librarian 02.13.2012
starts with a bang! 02.13.2012
Comments
I read the adjucation, and guess which article was closer to the mark? (No prizes for the winner!)
And Tim - did you catch the emphatic statements by the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and Peter Coaldrake of Universities Australia?
The evidence is irrefutable: climate change is real and the link with human activity is beyond doubt.
From the ABC today.
Posted by: Sou | March 15, 2010 6:31 AM
Meanwhile the ABC chair weighs in with his views on media balance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/10/2842322.htm
Posted by: barry | March 15, 2010 7:08 AM
"Climate change is at the moment an emotional issue." - Maurice Newman
Yeah, it'll be a whole lot more emotional the warmer the climate gets. What a dope.
Posted by: Dappledwater | March 15, 2010 7:16 AM
I actually believed this when I seen it. I thought he wouldn't be daft enough to lie about this if his entire UK readership are going to see the advertisements anyway. I was wrong.
Posted by: FJM | March 15, 2010 7:32 AM
Perhaps Leake is trying to become a reliably wrong bellwether (as some other media pundits seem to be)?
It's useful to have someone reliably wrong - if only to bet against ;-)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| March 15, 2010 7:50 AM
He's a lot like a flawed compass with the part marked North always pointing in any direction but. Once you find out just how wrong it is, a lot of blue language follows.
Posted by: Donald Oats | March 15, 2010 8:00 AM
Embargo watch update:
http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/03/12/the-sunday-times-jonathan-leake-responds-to-pnas/
But as one commenter put it:
Posted by: Paul UK | March 15, 2010 9:11 AM
So when is the ABC going to extend its "balance" to having a Trotskyite rebuttal after the market report?
Posted by: Philip Machanick | March 15, 2010 9:19 AM
Leake in nutshell:
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/when-journalism-is-about-hits-the-craft-goes-amiss/article1500373/
Posted by: GGS | March 15, 2010 1:25 PM
Sad to say Leake's piece has been parroted by some hack at the Telegraph too. Not that unpredictable, mind! Daily Telegraph=Taily Delingpole!
Anyone checked the Maily Dail or the Daily Getsworse?
Posted by: climateprogressive | March 15, 2010 1:49 PM
Several years ago I put in a complaint on behalf of CND Cymru (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Wales) to the ASA about various Ads that BNFL were running in the UK press (including the Guardian, ever keen to forego their 'principles' in return for advertising income, perhaps).
Needless to say the ASA found in favour of the then government run BNFL - quelle surprise!
Posted by: Dave Andrews | March 15, 2010 6:01 PM
John Quiggin has been the target of a pretty obvious attack post by Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/15/mcintyre-accused-by-university-of-queensland-prof-of-cru-break-in/
Somebody needs to educate Quiggin on the CRU ftp security blunder that was “the mole”. He doesn’t get it, and then proceeds to use that as “evidence” against McIntyre. It’s comical. Here’s Professor Quiggin’s page at the University of Queensland: ...
also notice this post about a letter by scientists defending the IPCC:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/15/academics-fight-back-on-climate-issues/
Anthony does obviously tolerate open hostility on his blog:
David Archibald (14:52:21) : The signatories of this letter are a good list of who to fire come the revolution.
scientists are becoming a target of open threats of violence. let them not pretend, that the denialist blogs have nothing to do with this!
Posted by: sod | March 15, 2010 8:18 PM
GGS @9
a.k.a. the 'Trollumnist' - their rubbish can't stand unchallenged but they win either way. Sad.
Posted by: foram | March 15, 2010 9:51 PM
Come the revolution some scientists will fall on their swords, while others will retire gracefully.
Academic hostility is nothing new, but the blogosphere places their squabbles front and centre, within the public domain. Words written cannot easily be erased, once they go viral, yet Quiggin's doing his best in an awkward situation.
Posted by: el gordo | March 15, 2010 10:02 PM
Who gives a rats arse how different papers worded the judgement.
It doesn't matter what side of the fence you sit on, this should be the issue.
Posted by: codex | March 16, 2010 11:12 PM
Joe Romm is thinking that the flooding side of things is pretty much happening already. When does the projection become reality?
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/17/global-boiling-freak-storms-on-every-continent/
Posted by: Oxford Kevin | March 17, 2010 11:28 AM
@sod #12:
I'm sure many of us have already seen it, but that's the subject of the most recent Climate Denial Crock Of The Week video.
At what point can threats like that be prosecuted? And under what jurisdiction would we be looking at?
Posted by: Brian D | March 17, 2010 1:42 PM
@codex #15:
Indeed. And, save that the reference to extreme weather events should have been phrased more tentatively, because the science doesn't have the resolution required to confirm that there is a 90+% chance of the relevant extreme weather events occurring in the UK, rather than in Europe as a whole, the ruling is that the science does support the claims in the ads.
What's your view?
Posted by: Robin Levett | March 18, 2010 3:48 AM