You are claiming that the emails ‘raise questions’ and that they are ‘disturbing’. This is not journalism, Andy, it’s tabloid journalism. It’s equivalent to the kind of thing the mainstream media did in the 1950s around communism, the kind of thing many outlets are doing now around muslims (remember how quickly everyone jumped on the assumption that it was some muslim or other, not Tim McVeigh, in Oklahoma?).

I’m disappointed and sad, and once again you should be ashamed.

This week he’s taking hits from frothy climate skeptics and conservative bloggers, who have charged him with being biased (against them), based on their reading of the new batch of emails, some of which contain communications between Revkin and climate scientists. One blogger at Commentary, now retrospectively assessing Revkin’s coverage of climategate 1 (when he was on NYT staff as a reporter) somehow concludes that he “ended up doing all he could to snuff it [the controversy] out.” Really? This must have been a funny way to go about it.

Well, Revkin has ended up doing an interesting Q & A with that Commentary blogger, which is posted here at Dot Earth.

At this point, given the charged emotions and politicization associated with climate change, any mainstream media reporter or blogger writing about this latest “climategate” flare-up should expect to be put through the paces. Or, in Revkin’s case, a buzzsaw. And given his special talent for displeasing the polar ends of the climate spectrum, perhaps this song is appropriate.

In fact, some, such as Damian Carrington at the Guardian, claimed the opposite, that “the real scandal” was “the failure to catch the email hacker.” Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones said the hacker’s identity was the “real remaining question of ‘Climategate.’” Picking up on this theme, the Guardian’s Leo Hickman has asked readers to help crowdsource “the hacker’s profile.”  (More on this in a minute.)

Only a few journalists (who don’t work for Fox News or dismiss climate change as a hoax) have thus far dared to suggest that there is more to this story than advocacy outlets and representatives for the climate science community would lead us believe. I can count them on two fingers. There is freelancer David Appell, who writes on his blog that the latest email dump

doesn’t show anything nefarious, but I think it does raise questions about how much purported unanimity has been artificially created by IPCC reports, and whether the full state of uncertainty is being communicated.

Similarly, Andy Revkin gives this perspective:

Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes.

Do I trust all climate scientists, research institutions, funding sources, journals and others involved in this arena to convey the full context of findings and to avoid sometimes stepping beyond the data? I wouldn’t be a journalist if I answered yes.

Translation: I trust climate science but not everybody and everything associated with it. Some people have agendas that tend to skew the science.

Can we all agree that this a reasonable position for a journalist to take?

So why the seeming reluctance of mainstream climate reporters to look beyond the surface of these emails and acknowledge that the story is not so black and white as: Nothing in these exchanges overturns or undermines the basic findings of climate science (the earth is warming, humans are contributing, we probably want to take that more seriously, etc). I mean, if we really want to get past that simplistic angle, there’s great fodder in the emails for a more substantive, nuanced discussion on the kinds of uncertainties that get seized on (and often distorted) by the more politicized climate skeptics and contrarians. But because proxies for the climate science community have declared this latest episode a no-fly zone, they effectively cede the debate over vexing climate change questions to skeptics, who are now laboriously wading through the whole file and mining it for nuggets that advance their own agendas.

Instead, as I mentioned above, there seems to be more journalistic appetite for unmasking the identity of the hacker/leaker. And just to be clear, that is a legitimate line of media inquiry (who doesn’t like a good mystery?). But this effort along those lines in the Guardian seems to have rubbed its readers the wrong way. Responses have ranged from outrage to sarcasm, such as this one:

I take it your next project will be to enlist help identifying anyone and everyone who has ever provided leaks to wikileaks, right?

The Wikileaks comparison was brought up by numerous readers (the Guardian has notably collaborated with Julian Assange on several occasions). But Leo Hickman (author of the help us-catch-the-email-hacker article) and a Guardian editor, each who participated in the thread, ignored the repeated mention of the Wikileaks parallels. [See update below] Readers noticed:

Leo, some of us wish you would respond to your critics who have pointed out the difference between the Guardian’s enthusiastic participation in Wikileaks and its determination to out the individual responsible for this one.

Could you kindly tell us your rationale?

I’d like to hear it, too. I’d also like to know why the illicitly received communications about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the confidential embassy cables of government diplomats are considered fair game (by reporters), but not the frank exchanges between climate scientists that sheds light on the inner workings of a field that informs public policy and political messaging on a host of energy and climate issues.

This is not to say I condone illegal theft of government/university/industry-related communications, whether that involves international relations, military deliberations, private company practices, or scientific disagreements. But let’s not pretend–especially in the media–that there is a difference between how information has been received in any of the recent high profile cases, be it Wikileaks and say, the trove of embassy cables it turned loose, or the anonymous hacker/leaker who has made public thousands of climate science emails.

Journalists who turn up their noses at the latter and willfully look away aren’t acting like journalists.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that I had a brief twitter exchange with Leo Hickman several days ago, related to the article of his that I discuss. He did acknowledge that there is an “interesting debate…about the moral equivalence between these two types of ‘whistleblowers” but at the same time he wondered if the whistleblower was  ”*always* justified just because the blower feels they’re justified? A chewy debate…” He also said he “didn’t respond” to the Wikileaks comparisons “because it would have prob[ably] been considered off-topic” by Guardian moderators.

UPDATE: For those wishing to see Leo’s full responses in that twitter thread, you can start here and here, then follow the sequence on that November 26th string. Additionally, as Hickman reminds me, the Guardian conducted an exhaustive investigation of the first “Climategate” affair (which did not endear them to the proprietors of Real Climate).

But before we move on, there is one notable observation shared by all sides, which deserves greater attention. And that is the healthy display of outright skepticism in many of the highlighted exchanges. As the BBC’s Richard Black noted,

what’s interesting is that some of the most frank and forthright wording comes from scientists telling their peers off – often, trying to calm them down and get them to be more grounded in accurate science, whatever the political implications.

This point was echoed by Guardian reporter Juliett Jowitt in a comment at Collide-a-Scape:

They do disagree, and sometimes rather bitchily (these were ‘private’), but if anything it is reassuring that even this supposedly close cabal of self-reinforcing climate change mongers (the views of others) were so critical of each other, and so frequently at pains to make sure that uncertainty was not just taken account of but clearly shown, to make sure they would not undermine their field by appearing to hide observations which did not appear to fit the story.

Similarly, Fred Moolten makes this assessment over at Climate Etc:

The new revelations remind us of the academic squabbling, pettiness, and biases that pervade many areas of science, and the existence of a siege mentality among some of the top echelons that works to paper over differences and uncertainties. Like Judith Curry, I also believe the revelations will have little impact on MSM reporting, and so I expect little influence on public opinion or climate policy.

At the same time, I’m troubled by what I see as a misconception underlying much blogosphere commentary here and elsewhere (particularly elsewhere) – a tendency to confuse the IPCC with climate science, and to impute sins of the former to the latter. As Jim D reminds us, there are gradations in the uncertainty within the science itself, ranging from a near certainty (never absolute but very substantial) about the basic strength of greenhouse gas warming potency within a range of estimates derived from multiple sources (not all dependent on GCMs), to a much less sure sense of how this will play out in terms of secondary consequences – for example, how hurricanes or regional flooding will behave. These conclusions can be derived from the thousands of reports in the literature and do not require a dependence on IPCC synthesis of the data. Equally important, though, uncertainty, even if belittled in some public comments by IPCC defenders, is clearly apparent in the literature itself, and so I don’t see the implication that it has been neglected as supportable.

What I state is a personal judgment. While others may disagree, I don’t think the disagreement would be well-informed unless expressed by individuals who are themselves familiar with the climate science literature first hand by reading it rather than second hand from what others are claiming.

Finally, although the use of the email revelations as a political weapon is unfortunate, I do hope the revelations will have a chastening effect on individuals such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and some of their colleagues, whose inflated sense of importance and entitlement led to the transgressions that have surfaced.

Along these lines, Jim D expands in that same Climate Etc thread:

Fred hits a point that I wanted to add to. The intersection of politics and science via the IPCC has led to some trying to put more certainty into public statements than they could in a scientific journal (on both sides), and some feel that without more certainty politicians won’t listen. This is an added distorting force that doesn’t exist in purely scientific debates (e.g. in fields of science with no political intersection), but this is the context that drives some scientists who are more involved with IPCC to push for certainty more than they otherwise would have.

Which brings us to Alexander Harvey’s observation on the frank back-and-forth between climate scientists:

You will find the unspoken middle ground on display, This is the ground that the science community left largely publically undefended and where many of the sceptics are camped out. I think it quite shocking that this territory was largely left publically unoccupied by the science community. It is where the debate seems to take place internally, yet externally, in the public domain, the existence of that debate is denied or downplayed.

Has this “middle ground” been adequately represented in the media? If not, why?

In the feverish precincts of the climate blogosphere, especially those in permanent battle mode, the response has been predictable. Anthony Watts is in full swoon and Marc Morano has turned on all his sirens and flashing lights. Meanwhile, grim faced hall monitors at message control sites have been waving their rulers at all journalists in the vicinity. Their message: Move along, nothing to see here (just like last time!).

Reporters, of course, paid no heed. But the stories have generally sounded the same theme, which is encapsulated in Richard Black’s BBC headline:

Climate Emails: Storm or Yawn?

As Black noted, “what’s interesting” about the emails

is that some of the most frank and forthright wording comes from scientists telling their peers off – often, trying to calm them down and get them to be more grounded in accurate science, whatever the political implications.

Yes, Black says, there is additional evidence of scientists not complying with Freedom of Information requests, but all in all, he writes, no plot to deceive the world about climate change.

Well, maybe just a teensy little, according to this AP article:

Excerpts quoted on climate skeptic websites appeared to show climate scientists talking in conspiratorial tones about ways to promote their agenda and freeze out those they disagree with.

But the main point I noticed being emphasized in most of the mainstream stories I read is that nothing in the emails released this week or two years ago undermines the science showing greenhouse gases as a main contributor to climate change. Darren Samuelsohn at Politico underscores this in his piece, as does Juliet Eilperin at the Washington Post, and Andy Revkin at the NYT’s Dot Earth, who writes that,

as was soon clear following the last release, on Nov. 21, 2009, this has little bearing on the overall thrust of decades of research revealing a rising human influence on the global climate system, and the logic in wise policies to limit both the pace of change and its impacts.

But here’s something to consider about all this business: I don’t think the perpetrator (whoever has stolen and distributed these emails) believes he has provided evidence that calls into question an accumulated body of science that shows the earth is warming. What he’s done is somewhat akin to pulling back the curtain on the legislative sausage-making in Washington D.C. To the uninitiated, it’s ugly stuff. But power plays, insults, shouting matches, back-scratching, etc, are a way of life, whether it happens on The Office, Capitol Hill, in newsrooms, or among climate researchers in a university setting.

But because there are major policy implications and intense politics associated with climate science, what should be considered normal human tendencies–such as infighting and attempts to shape an outcome–are instead viewed in a harsh light, at best, or as an indictment of a profession, at worst.

Climate science will survive this latest viewing of its dirty laundry, because it is a highly reputable field with a proven track record. And because climate scientists are doing work that sheds light on issues important to us. That said, the perpetrator of “climategate” (and its sequel) has succeeded in focusing attention on the behavior and actions of a small group of scientists, who, for better or worse, are seen as representative of the climate science community.

In politics, perception counts as much as reality. The same rule now applies to climate science.

So the timing is obvious, of course, as Andy Revkin sardonically notes in a tweet. Richard Tol seems wearily perplexed:

and here we go again — as if Durban isn’t dead enough

During some back and forth with him, I opine:

Leaks intended (I believe) to influence public opinion, not official positions [of countries]. New batch doesn’t get big play w/out news hook.

One of the interesting subplots will be how the press handles this latest batch of leaked climate science emails. Journalists tend to get giddy off the slightest whiff of scandal. Lots of climate concerned folk are still bitter over the media’s role the last time around. (Of course, climate skeptics think the press fell down on the job, too, so go figure.) Meanwhile, watchdogs on the left are already on high alert. For example, I think Brad Johnson was the first out of the box with a pre-emptive warning to journos.

I haven’t had a chance to read any of the emails yet, but I suspect (and I could turn out to be wrong) that the payoff will ultimately underwhelm.

Remember, drug addicts are always chasing after that first high.

Anyone interested in how the journalistic sausage gets made in the UK, about the cozy relationship between British reporters and politicians, about how climate change gets covered in the media, should watch this revealing talk by  Sarah Mukherjee, who until recently was a BBC environmental correspondent.

Bishop Hill is making hay over some of her statements related to climategate  and ties between NGO’s and climate science. But it was her dishing about the journalism profession that caught my attention.

At one point, referring to coverage of climate science, she mentions how difficult it is

trying to explain incredibly complex science in 50 words or 200 or 300 words. It doesn’t really fit. And what you have to do is hope that the policymakers do get it enough and are sophisticated enough in order to understand it. And fortunately, in a large number of cases, they do understand it, but they understand the Daily Mail headline more…there’s this panic [among politicians] about what the papers are going to say, and of course, depending on the mood or depending how slow a news day it is, you’re going to get a headline that will completely and deliberately misunderstand the science–often.

This next anecdote is a beauty:

The number of times I was rung at 7 oclock in the morning, ‘oh hi, it’s the desk here, there’s something about the environment on page 6 in the [Daily] mail. Could you do something?’

‘Well, what is it?’

‘Oh, I don’t know, it’s just something in the Mail.’

That was it. That’s all you had to know. It was in the Mail, therefore you had to do it. Despite the fact that you probably looked at the report and it was a load of nonsense, or the Mail had overwritten it. Most of my battles were over trying not to do pieces that had been covered wrongly by the tabloid press.

She then sighs and lets it rip:

This leads you to the conclusion that you have the political class and the media class, which are essentially the same thing. They all went to the same schools, they all went to the same places. They all know each other, have known each other since university days, or earlier…[they're] locked into some mutually destructive embrace. The politicians trust the media, because they think that they are in touch with normal people. I don’t know how the hell they are, because they spend their whole time with the politicians. Therefore the politicians give the stories to the media and the media then reflect that back…And actually nobody is talking to normal people at all. Nobody. No politicians. No journalists.

Ouch. All 75 minutes (which includes an interesting Q & A with the audience) are well worth watching.

I believe you that you are not on Koch’s team. I think you are on [Julian] Assange’s team, Team Loose Cannon.

I’m interested in this because so many discussions involving Assange (and Wikileaks) conflate motivation and character flaws with deed. In my opinion, this conflation colors the perception of the big WikiLeaks “document dumps” such as the last one. Fortunately, plenty of journalists get the value of WikiLeaks; unfortunately, many don’t, which has puzzled me. (The same split has occurred among transparency advocates.)

So how does this relate to Steve Mosher and the climate debate? Well, Mosher is the co-author of this book, an unpardonable sin to many in the climate community, including Tobis, who consigns Mosher to eternal damnation,

Unless and until you find it within yourself to understand that you have major fucked up, big time, by throwing big juicy meat to the deniers to chew on and spin paranoid fantasies about for years, even decades…

Now if Tobis merely left it at that and didn’t suggest (in a negative way) that Mosher was cut from the same cloth as Assange, I wouldn’t find this outburst so interesting. So what is Tobis after here, more than two years removed from Climategate? He’s grasping for an underlying motivation for an action that he finds contemptible. Typically, Tobis is prone to sweeping statements:

My point, alas, is not to revive the controversy (comments on that matter will be summarily booted) but to raise the question of Mosher’s M.O. If he is a coherent and honest person, he has no respect for privacy, and explicitly holds that anything held in confidence is grounds for suspicion. This is totally out of keeping with existing culture, so much so that I suspect it is inherently inhumane. Of course, when we think about Assange, we have to raise exactly the same questions.

Leaving aside the “inherently inhumane” crack, which strikes me as pretty over the top, I think the most intriguing question related to all this was raised by PDA in the comment thread:

Let’s assume Mosher is sincere in his stated motivation, and give the same benefit of the doubt to Assange. Now make the same assumption about Daniel Ellsberg, notably a supporter of Assange.

What’s the substantive difference between the three, when you abstract out your judgment about the actors themselves, and likewise the outcome of their actions?

It’s a real question, not a gotcha. Because I don’t know the answer myself.

That’s a good question to chew on if you’re one of those people that likes to judge an action by someone’s character.

Personally, I’d rather a person’s action, or blog post, newspaper article, or academic study be judged for itself and not on the basis of an inferred motivation.

At first, in the immediate aftermath of Climategate, Curry’s critiques focused on “climate tribalism” and “transparency” issues. By April of 2010, she had expanded her criticism to include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggesting it was rife with “corruptions” due to bad practices and the behavior of individual scientists. Last December, her transformation from consensus-believing insider to dissenting outsider was cemented in a Scientific American profile, which called her a “climate heretic.”

All along, Curry has maintained that one of her goals is to help build bridges between the vociferous climate skeptic camp and the mainstream climate science community. But Curry’s recent trajectory has some of the cooler heads wondering if she’s become just another antagonist in the the fractious climate debate.

This week she seems to have reinforced that belief with a post that accuses climate scientists of being “dishonest” in the way they presented data in an IPPC report. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt quickly responded:

You have gone significantly over the line with this post. Accusations of dishonesty are way beyond a difference of opinion on how a graph should be displayed.

A caustic exchange between Curry and Schmidt ensued, which Joe Romm reproduces here.

Now, what interests me most about this latest contretemps is Curry’s apparent larger rationale for her escalating (and harsher?) drumbeat of criticism. The justification is inferred in a response to Bart Verheggen on the thread of that explosive post, in which she claims that

the public credibility of climate science remains in tatters.

That’s one of those sweeping statements that I don’t see any evidence for. Did some climate scientists get a chink in their reputations after the batch of East Anglia emails were released? Sure. But there was no larger indictment of climate science, or any revelations of fraud that undermined the large body of cumulative research pointing to man-made warming of the climate.

Now just because a new breed of U.S. Republicans uses this affair to reinforce their own biases doesn’t mean the credibility of climate science is in tatters. Same with conservative-leaning TV meteorologists, who seem unduly influenced by Climategate.

But what about the public at large? Here’s what Jon Krosnic wrote last year about his Stanford Study:

First, we found no decline in Americans’ trust in environmental scientists: 71 percent of respondents said they trust these scientists a moderate amount, a lot or completely, a figure that was 68 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. Only 9 percent said they knew about the East Anglia e-mail messages and believed they indicated that climate scientists should not be trusted, and only 13 percent of respondents said so about the I.P.C.C. reports’ alleged flaws.

And in the UK, where Climategate got wide and frequent play, here’s the findings from a recent Guardian poll:

Asked if climate change was a current or imminent threat, 83% of Britons agreed, with just 14% saying global warming poses no threat. Compared with August 2009, when the same question was asked, opinion remained steady despite a series of events in the intervening 18 months that might have made people less certain about the perils of climate change.

Last June, a similar poll in the U.S. also found that

public belief that global warming is happening rose four points, to 61 percent, while belief that it is caused mostly by human activities rose three points, to 50 percent.

If public credibility of climate science is supposedly “in tatters,” as Curry asserts, it’s certainly not reflected in public polls.

You want to know when something is in tatters?

Dems Panicked over “Climategate” Probe

You might think the reference is to Congressional Democrats, but you would be wrong.

However, there is mounting evidence that some bloggers are getting antsy for House Republicans to get on with their promised climate carnival.

The 12 months since 17 November 2009 have shown brutally that the social, political and cultural dynamics at work around the idea of climate change are more volatile than the slowly changing and causally entangled climate dynamics of the Earth’s biogeophysical systems.