Wednesday, Dec 16th, 2009
The Climategate scientists did nothing wrong. So says New Scientist magazine in its latest edition.
This New Scientist is, of course, absolutely no relation whatsoever to the New Scientist whose reporting was singled out for praise by the Climategate scientists in the following email:
From: “Michael E. Mann” <email@example.com>
To: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!
(That “HS” stands for the Hockey Stick, by the way. Gosh that would be embarrassing, wouldn’t it? If you were a supposedly authoritative science magazine and you were found being praised by fraudulent scientists for your help in turd-polishing their fraudulent science?)
Anyway, the magnificent Jo Nova has done a really good number on New Scientist in her blog:
You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.
In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…
The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility they might have had.
And New Scientists readers agree with her. How strongly they agree with her can be seen by the number of deleted comments at the New Scientist website.
This article was posted: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 5:14 am