

Climate change global editorial - Gupie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial

======
SamAtt
It's funny that they'd go ahead with this after all that's happened in the
last couple weeks (the so called "Climategate")

I'm certainly not saying the accusations debunk Global Warming or anything
like that. But when something comes up that throws what I initially believed
into doubt I go back and investigate I don't keep pushing as hard as I was.

The fact that these people would come out so strongly even after the last two
weeks makes me think their opinion is based more on dogma than it is on
science.

~~~
dazzawazza
Doesn't 'Climate Gate':

\- just effect the 'tree ring' data and projections based upon it? \- bring in
to question a few scientists ethics?

There are still thousands of other data sets and thousands of other scientists
that point toward global warming and mans influence on the global climate.

I may be reading this wrong but after two weeks not a lot of come from the
leaked emails to make me doubt the science as a whole. Granted it's still
'best guess' science and the tree ring data just goes to show how our best
knowledge may still be flawed but to do nothing is more stupid then to 'put
our best foot forward' as it were.

~~~
azgolfer
No, the flawed data sets and 'tricks' were reused for many papers. There was a
tight circle of scientist who published most of the global warming nonsense.

~~~
dazzawazza
Trick in a scientific context is just a clever thing to do. It's not a
deceitful trick.

A lot of scientific papers use the term trick.

------
diego_moita
It is a well tought, well written and well argued editorial.

But I fear it is a "dog bites man" story and the invented Climategate scandal
is a "man bites dog" story. So guess which one makes it to front pages,
headlines and blogs.

------
sleepingbot
What I see is that no North-American heavyweights are endorsing the editorial.
Not even middle weights from "progressive" cities such as San Francisco,
Portland, Seattle, Austin, Denver and the like.

I wonder if ClimateGate had anything to do with that. The New York Times
didn't have any issue to remain at least "not clear" when US attacked Irak
with claims that proved to be false. Then the same newspaper endorsed Hillay
Clinton at the beginning of the last US presidential campaign. They
"converted" to Barack Obama's cause later on.

I see big media in the US not willing to show an strong opinion in this topic.
Media will be able to weigth and remember each other's position on this in
20-30 years.

Aren't editorials to lead in specially tough decisions? Or it's just me who
didn't understand that concept in journalism school 10 years ago?

