Planet Gore

Re: On the Horn with the Warming All-Stars

A few people have e-mailed to ask why none of the reporters on the Romm-Mann-Schmidt-Oppenheimer conference call asked this or that question. Guys, I hear ya. I was lucky to get one question and a follow-up, and the issue that interested me most was the corruption of the peer-review process. I can’t ask every question, and I can’t say I was surprised that the mainstream guys for the most part ignored Climategate. After listening to the audio, here is a breakdown of the questions by outlet:
Revkin, NYT: Mr. Scientists, why dirty your objective, non-partisan hands by associating with a group like CAP? (Don’t you realize you’re making it harder for me to portray you as objective and non-partisan?)
CBS: Do you expect any major announcements at Copenhagen? (What Climategate?)
Me: Please explain behind-the-scenes attempts to redefine “peer-reviewed literature” to mean “people who agree with us.” (Do note: I was the first reporter to bring up Climategate.)
NPR: Professor Mann, isn’t your own university investigating you over this? And what’s up the conspiracy to delete e-mails? (I’m telling you guys, NPR is better than you think.)
Another NYT guy: D’ya think Climategate might make it harder for the Senate to enact a cap-and-trade bill?
Newsweek: “One of the things that a lot of us have been trying to figure out is the correlation between U.S. domestic policy and [Copenhagen],” (so please talk about that and not Climategate).
Neil Munro, National Journal: Maybe you should let a team of outsiders investigate and audit the data you’ve been using. Might restore your credibility just a tad.
Nature: Has Climategate taught you anything about transparency and disclosure? (Perfect set-up question for the group: Mann replies that most of the e-mails in question are more than ten years old, and that the climate-science community has made great strides in transparency and disclosure since then.)
I might have missed a question, but I think that’s it. Three of the eight reporters didn’t even mention the leaked e-mails. Two of the remaining five didn’t confront the group with the content of the e-mails, but merely asked them to comment on the ensuing furor. Only three of eight actually asked about the substance of the controversy. Delingpole is right: The MSM, by and large, just don’t care about this scandal, even though their readers and viewers plainly do.