Comments on: Meta News: Coverage of the ClimateGate Inquiry Reveals Partisan Passions

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 09 May 2010 22:09:03 +0000

I too have been shocked by the reporting of the inquiries, or lack thereof – Scott Mandia did a nice breakdown of the news coverage before and after the inquiries here: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/climategate-coverage-unfair-unbalanced/

It’ll be a few years before I can call myself a scientist (or, for that matter, legally drink in all countries) but I am deeply involved in this issue (read my blog here – http://climatesight.org) and I can understand how scared some scientists are. Why there haven’t been more libel suits filed by climatologists amazes me.

By: Harry Braun

Harry Braun — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:50:45 +0000

Actually, the most significant revelation to come from all those hacked emails is that we now know that the most published and peer-reviewed climate change specialists in the world think that Patrick Michaels and Ross Mckitrick are a couple of idiots.

There have been plenty of surveys conducted to evaluate the scientific opinion on global warming. Here are a few links to some of the more recent surveys idiots.

Read: Patrick Michaels is a Buffoon

http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/patrick-michaels-is-a-buffoon/

By: JRR Canada

JRR Canada — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 02:16:26 +0000

Bias, who cares?When might we see this climate science? It sounds like a real nice idea. Did you read the two reports? Their content does not support the published head lines. More like damning with faint praise, the devil is in the details.

By: Hayden

Hayden — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:29:42 +0000

I think it’s silly that people are criticizing him for accusing news of being partisan while he is partisan on his blog.

I mean, not only is it a BLOG which doesn’t claim to be an unbiased news source, but on his website he actually ACKNOWLEDGES that, and says that when it comes to politics, he makes no guarantees that he’s going to be unbiased. It’s his BLOG, it’s not (nor does it claim to be) a news organization. He’s under no ethical obligation to be “fair and balanced”, and he hasn’t ever made it out to be that he or his blog are without political bias or outright support/opposition.

Still, these people criticizing him for being biased in this case are probably the same ones who defended him when he was criticizing Obama. They’re angry that he called Fox “News” a partisan organization with an ax to grind against climate change science, and they’re going to use anything to dispute his conclusion (which, really, is quite right. Like it or hate it, Fox “News” is more of a pundit platform than it is a news source).

Plus, shouldn’t we expect this guy, a scientist, to criticize blatantly anti-science sentiments in the news or in politics?

By: Mojo

Mojo — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:51:28 +0000

Good grief. An uber-partisan blog ‘reporting’ on “partisan passions”.

Lord Oxburgh — chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables — who stands to make billions of dollars in the next few years with his carbon sequestration and other schemes, clears the people who are making his fortune possible.

So, which side of the partisan divide finds this behavior acceptable?

By: doctoratlantis

doctoratlantis — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:38:48 +0000

That’s nothing – I heard the IPCC was going to personally arrest the pope!

By: jim

jim — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:23:09 +0000

Axe, surely?

By: bigD

bigD — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:02:24 +0000

right on Gravytop

By: Gravytop

Gravytop — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:13:08 +0000

Ax to grind? This blog has the biggest ax of all.

By: David

David — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:35:31 +0000

Even as someone not convinced of all the AGW research and having questions about the still unresolved issues from the emails…..

I find the Fox story irresponsible and even slanderous against Dr. Mann.

I am embarrassed.