So Tim Lambert has been a busy blogger this last month with some really first rate investigative work on the truly abysmal rash of shoddy climate journalism in the UK. Check out his Leakgate category for a multitude of "must read" postings.
Also see Eli on Leakeng Ships. for another run down of Tim's work.
Real Climate did a good roundup of the phony spate of IPCC scandals as well, here and here (if you only click one of those links, click the first because it has some excellent background on the IPCC to add some reality perspective to the whole mess).
I don't understand how reporters can keep their jobs after multiple instances of outraged interviewees saying they were egregiously misquoted. I hope they have been complaining to superiors at the respective establishments (at the very least).
No round up would be complete without this bombshell. Prof. Jones seems to think that it is not "standard practice" to share data!
Why is it that everyone in the climate community seems to think that the email leaks show nothing at odds with good science...except the Professor himself who concedes they are "pretty awful".
Far from following a "standard practice" it would appear he would share data with some and not with others.
This has done untold damage and he should go. Various august scientific bodies are now wading in and pecking at his head. What a mess!
Given the track record of the Dail Mail as illustrated in the links given above, I am hardly inclined to believe anything about this issue from the Daily Mail. Fool me once, shame on them, fool me twice, I must want to be fooled.
I am not sure what your position on this subject is, but it is important to separate the 'controversy' over the CRU emails etc, from the real science of climate change. It has become common practice for the denialist community to allege that, because of some perceived problems with CRU's handling of data etc, that this undermines the case for climate change. This is NOT the case.
Indeed, on this very issue, the 'august scientific bodies....pecking at his (Jones) head..." may have some concerns about Jones, but they are definite about their views on climate change - which fish and chip wrappers like the Daily Mail don't seem to want to grasp, because it runs counter to their flawed ideologies and luddite views of science. Here is what the Institute of Physics has to say on this issue (the FULL version - not the quote mine used by the Daily Rag):
(from: http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html )
"...The Institute of Physics recently submitted a response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
The Institute's statement, which has been published both on the Institute's website and the Committee's, has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming. That is not the case. The Institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing â and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.
The Institute's response to the Committee inquiry was approved by its Science Board, a formal committee of the Institute with delegated authority from its trustees to oversee its policy work. It reflected our belief that the open exchange of data, procedures and materials is fundamental to the scientific process. From the information already in the public domain it appears that these principles have been put at risk in the present case, and that this has undermined the trust that is placed in the scientific process.
These comments, focused on the scientific process, should not be interpreted to mean that the Institute believes that the science itself is flawed..."
I think that's pretty clear for all you denialists out there. Now can we have a discussion about the issues, not these red herrings that seem to be all you are capable of using to support your lack of credibility on science.