CNN: Out of Context?
By Allie Duzett | November 25, 2009
CNN.com finally posted an article about the most recent global warming scandal: the emails that show global warming “experts” collaborating to falsify information and keep dissenting views from the public. The emails surfaced days ago, but this is the first article CNN has posted online regarding the scandal. Apparently, CNN has still not seen fit to assign its own reporters to the story; the article was carried from Wired Science. And rather than report the straight facts, the article focuses mainly on the researchers’ complaint: that emails were taken “out of context.”
“Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion,” Wired writer Kim Zetter writes, backhandedly discrediting the “skeptics” who have taken the time to point out the scientists’ “frank discussions” of how to prevent dissent from surfacing.
The article focuses heavily on researchers whose reputations are at stake: Zetter exclusively interviews the scientific fraudsters at the exclusion of their detractors. Zetter includes remarks from Gavin Schmidt, a researcher with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. According to Schmidt, the questionable remarks from other researchers are “just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way.”
The article even ends with a sad little quotation from Kevin Trenberth, a climate “scientist” who admitted in the emails, “The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.” Zetter concludes her article:
“If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists,” [Trenberth] says. “The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context.”
On the one hand, Zetter, Trenberth, and Schmidt are all correct: context is necessary in any situation. Certainly, people can take quotations out of context in any instance and that is problematic.
However, here the context is clear: whatever these “researchers” wrote to one other was in the context of a private email that they assumed would never go public.
When Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia admitted in the emails that he had used a “trick” of falsifying the data to get the results he wanted, the context was clear: Jones was writing privately to someone who agreed with the concept of promoting fake data for personal gain.
When Jones emailed Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and told him to delete information that could be requested via the Freedom of Information Act, the context was clear: Jones was writing to a trusted colleague with an illicit request that he hoped would never be found out.
When Kevin Trenberth wrote to his correspondent about how he couldn’t prove any warming, the context was clear: Trenberth was confiding a dismaying secret to a sympathetic listener.
What more context do we need? The context is: some unscrupulous scientists sent some private emails to each other as they worked together to falsify data and squelch dissenting opinions—and then those private emails went public. That’s the context here. Some “scientists” in question claim that certain incriminating words—like “trick”—mean something different in scientific jargon and that once again, the terms are taken out of context, but the truth is, the context is all right here. We have all the context we need, and some people are guilty.
Allie Duzett is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
7 Comments | Post a Comment
What most of us have seen in the few emails exposed by bloggers and repeated on FOX is, in all likelyhood, the tip of a large, dirty iceberg floating in sea of conspiratorial misrepresentation and coordinated propaganda aimed at the heart of capitalism and prosperity for the middle class. Behind it all are leftist politicians and a myriad of useful idiots who are now responsible for the brainwashing of impressionable young minds. Inexcusable and diabolical. Heads should roll and careers should crumble. Al Gore, it would seem, is going to need a new gig!
Canada’ big three media outlets have not said a word. In fact they have upped the climate warming stories to the max.
Our Prime Minister is going to HopetoBagThem in December a major turn around for him and all this took place a day after the Climategate material was exposed.
60 odd Governments were going after the e-mails 100+ governments are running there to sign something anything before the truth becomes common news.
Also here in Canada the Queen of England is pleading for Canada to sign up ASAP. Which is strange because we just had polls released in Canada that 63% of Canadians don’t want the Queen as head of state. Strange days indeed….
Oh man…what an unexpected coup…and with no force. We’ve bagged the liars and scammers haven’t we. They are in damage control…but the truth is out of the bag…can’t get it back. Even the Queen is in on it. Wow!!!! Keep up the heat alternative news people. The MSM is desparate. They see the end of their jobs down the road a piece. Ha, Ha, Ha! I’m loving this.
ucm4u, you are quite correct. The squirm is on! Those who pretend to be “journalists”, when all they are are political activists and apologist, kool-aid-drinking useful idiots for socialist scam artists, are today scrambling for cover by appealing to ill-informed, ignorant, apathetic fools who have believed this crap for decades. The chickens have come home to roost.
Are there any ethical climate change scientists out there who will stand up for their profession?
I’m relieved that global warming / climate change research data has been found wanting but if we can’t believe in the science community what is left?
The problem isn’t in science. The problem is politicizing science. From the get go the man made global warming science was based on incorrect methods. You state a hypothesis then proceed to disprove it. If it can’t be disproved then the hypothesis is the natural conclusion. With this subject…it was concluded that man was responsible for global warming not the natural cycle of the earth/sun relationship then they shut out anyone who could disprove it. Not good. By the way the phrase ‘found wanting’ doesn’t even come close to what has happened. Lies, deceit, scam, hoax, fraud etc. These all fit better.
November 27 at 4:28 pm | #1 | Link
Given that CNN’s former owner Ted Turner is an envirofacist (See his “Captain Planet” series in the early 1990s that would pave the way for The Communist (Cartoon) Network later that decade), this should come as no surprise.
Let’s see if this environmental insanity will spread to NASCAR on TNT’s coverage from 6 June to 10 July 2010 which will include several people who work for News Corp (SPEED and NASCAR on FOX). These include Larry McReynolds, Kyle Petty, Matt Yocum, and Ralph Sheheen.