The Swiftboating of Science

The Swiftboating of Science: "

Colleague Ari Michelsen alerted me to this article in The Progress Report byFaiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Zaid Jilani, and Alex Seitz-Wald, Global Warming, A Fake Scandal.

I excerpted the following two sections, because the term 'swiftboating' caught my eye. Looks like we have a new application for the process!

THE SWIFTBOATING OF SCIENCE BEGINS: The coordinated attack began last month when more than a thousand stolen internal e-mails from the CRU were dumped on a Russian web server. Hackers then used a computer in Saudi Arabia to post the e-mails on the climate skeptic website Air Vent. Skeptic blog "Watts Up With That" then picked up the story, and it wasn't long before the National Review and the rest of the right-wing blogosphere leaped on the hacked e-mails. Within a few days of the leak, Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) staff began distributing a letter claiming that the stolen e-mails revealed that global warming "could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history." Soon after, right wingers of all stripes took up the cause of using the e-mails to debunk climate science, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, oil empire tycoon David Koch, and radical Fox News host Glenn Beck. Despite all this hysteria, the truth is that the content of the e-mails proved no such thing. Right wingers point to exchanges between climate scientists disparaging global warming deniers, which by itself does nothing to disprove the case of a warming planet. The most prominent e-mail deniers are touting is one from Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann sent to CRU chief Phil Jones, where Mann wrote, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." While conspiracy theorists were quick to declare that this was evidence of Mann and Jones conspiring to hide data skeptical of global warming, as Time explains, Jones's "'trick'...simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. It's an analytical technique that has been openly discussed in scientific journals for over a decade -- hardly the stuff of conspiracy." Even conservative writer Megan McArdle has admitted, "I have so far seen no evidence of the kind of of grand conspiracy that some critics have charged."

THE MEDIA BOOSTS THE CONSPIRACY: Despite the fact that the e-mails in no way disprove the science of climate change, the mainstream media almost instantly took up the right wing's spin and used it to undermine the case for the existence climate change. NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams quickly adopted the conservative Climategate smear, asking, "Have the books been cooked on climate change?" Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal accused climate scientists of being Stalinists. A variety of Fox News hosts and guests promoted the e-mails over and over again as refuting the science of climate change. One of the worst media reports on the non-scandal appeared on CBS News. The network reported that the "e-mails seem to show that some of the top experts decided to exclude or manipulate some research that didn't help prove global warming exists," and said that the e-mails could cause the Copenhagen conference to "only produce the framework for an agreement that then will be passed on to next year." The mainstream media's willingness to grant legitimacy to the conspiracy theories has had unfortunate consequences. Two of the scientists whose e-mails were leaked have received death threats, prompting the FBI to launch an investigation. The Saudi negotiator in Copenhagen told the press that his government's "confidence" in the science of climate change "has been shaken" by the hacked e-mails.

Read the entire article here.

“I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.” -- Hans van Storch

"