I should have said that it’s not necessarily a bad sign when both sides are mad.

But that’s not true either, even for purely politiucal stories, although journalists and other people who see themselves as centrists fervently wish it was.  Especially when any sort of checkable fact gets involved, the press has a responsibility to state what that fact implies, notwithstanding that it offends one side or the other.  

There is no scandal, besides the fact that so many people have allowed themselves to be convinced of a scandal. There certainly is no conspiracy of the sort that some people are happy to believe in. The early history of such a conspiracy, and the unanimous consent of all the world’s major scientific bodies, is woefully difficult for them to account for.

The press needs to actually apply some investigative skill here.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-worlds-biggest-story-everywhere-but-here/

Anyway, I only have one more comment on the subject at hand.  The idea that “who” started “which” scandal story is important is pure BS.  What matters is – is it true?  How did it happen?  Is there a reasonable explanation?  Should someone resign/apologize/be prosecuted?  And I don’t get to the prosecution idea lightly. 

But “killing the messenger” is just stupid.  And there’s a direct analogy between the attitude about this and the attitude about those who disagree with one’s science.   I’m gonna leave youy with a directly applicable quote (the last part is particularly applicable) -

A scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make.  A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested.  If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.  On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the predictions, one has to discard or modify the theory.  (At least that is what is supposed to happen.  In practice, people often question the accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of those making the observations.)     
      From -  “The Universe in a Nutshell” by Stephen Hawking

I won’t be back to this particular discussion -

I am certainly biased against ignorance, stupidity, reality-challenged politics and preconceptual science.   For that reason I only occasionally drop in on Realclimate or similar sites, but I check WUWT & Co every day.  I’ve found  a considerable level of reality and an amazing level of actual science there - often in the articles, but even more so in the comment sections.  You’ve noticed, I suppose, that I check in here fairly often, too.  You can take that as a compliment if you like.  There is also a short list of other blogs/websites that provide information.  For example -http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

For the rest of the world, most of what I need to know comes from casual headlines or other Internet sources (although generally not the major networks).  I’ve found that I don’t need to be constantly “connected” – if I need to know something (anything) the knowledge is usually available for the asking. And I do ask. 

My “complaints” are based on reality – the media has spent years trumpeting that Arctic ice will disappear in – what? – 5 years, 10 years – whatever.  Fact is that they don’t know, neither do the “scientists” that feed them the “information”.  Nor is there any real evidence to back up the claim.  Basically, I see it as scaremongering for political/financial purposes. 

Then there are the claims that the temps and sea level rise  are increasing “faster than we expected” – which the media are all too happy to announce to the world.  But which are entirely false.  

Which brings us to one of my favorites – the Hockey Stick.  I may be an engineer, but that doesn’t mean I’m stupid, ignorant, uneducated – or gullible.  I’ve also had a good education in the art of the scam.  But that’s another story.  So when someone tries to feed me a line of BS that says the MWP never happened, I first check to make sure my wallet is secure.  And in this case, that’s directly appicable. 

The other participants in this discussion may have some problems with my attitude.  That would be good – if it gives them incentive to actually investigate their  programmed responses.   In the past, I’ve found myself in their position – it took me 3 years of intensive investigation to find (and believe) the truth and adjust my attitude about a particular subject. 

Not to worry, you won’t have to put up with me for a while – I’ll be on Springer Mt a week from now, headed north on the Appalachian Trail for 700 miles, then flying to California to thruhike the Pacific Crest Trail.  I’ll be back in October or November if the knees hold out. 

And Oso, your litany of complaints has the same exaggerated tone as Michael’s. So tell me, where are you getting your unbiased news and information from, since you’ve stopped buying newspapers (and presumably stopped reading them online)?

Tom Y said:
Tell me Michael, just how much attention was warranted here in the United States? I get the sense that you think we journalists should just take it on faith that it’s all bullshit and ignore it.

So far that ‘s pretty much what’s happened. There’s been a rash of bloggers, in this country and others, who’ve wondered where the American press has been since November.  There’s been speculation as to why the American press is consciously committing collective suicide by covering everything in the world except the one story that “might” actually make a difference – Climategate and the follow-on stories.  If Climategate is a fraud, if the IPCC stories are not true – where is the proof?  Where are the vaunted investigative journalists of the American press corps?  I’ve seen/heard a lot of – nothing.  Except from people like Romm and Schmidt calling BS on the whole thing, but failing to present anything like proof of their allegations or proof of the “fraud” – or even reasonable explanations.   The “move on, there’s nothing to see here” line just doesn’t work because there is so obviously a LOT to see.  And very little of the American media that doesn’t have thier heads in their armpits, hiding from the truth (whatever that might be).   

If the public can’t trust the media to actually investigate and report the story, preferably honestly, then what good are the media?  And why should the public pay to keep them on life support? For my part, I stopped buying newspapers at least 5 years ago. I don’t watch TV and I rarely go to the network websites. 

What I just said is that the American media has failed to do what they get paid for.  Personally, I fired them long ago.  Apparently, more and more of the public are in the process of firing them as well. 

PS – “honest reporting” does NOT involve going into the story with preconceived storylines.  That would be like deciding what the science “should be” and then using only the evidence that proves the desired conclusion, but ignoring (or hiding) anything that opposes it.  Preconceptual reporting is neither prettier nor more honest than preconceptual science.