But we’re not all for the blatant pattern of subjective misrepresentation that goes on, virtually unchecked, all over the Internet — including by sites that are routinely, well, cited.

In this Post, a Biggovernment.com writer starts blatantly spinning in the second sentence (emphasis added):

…basis of calls for extreme climate change regulation.

But it is in the title, and the very first sentence, where the piece starts of misleading, right off the bat.

The title: “Penn State’s ‘ClimateGate’ Inquiry Determines Further Investigation Is Needed.”

How is this misleading? Well, for one, it gives no indication of the more relevant fact that Mann was cleared of any wrongdoing in three of the four charges, and the only three that really matter, namely:

1. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

2. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

3. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

Which charge was Mann not yet cleared on?

4. Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously
deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

Notice the difference between “conceal, destroy, misuse, falsify (No.’s 1-3) and “seriously deviating from accepted ‘practices’ within the academic community” (No.4) — along with how subjective that latter standard might be. It’s not unethical; it is prima facie evidence, if in fact it is found to have been the case, of having made an academic mistake. Sometimes going outside of such practices may even be a good thing. (We are not suggesting that this is necessarily the case here, just pointing out the subjective, and somewhat insignificant nature of this charge.)

Mann has been accused of all kinds of things, including some very serious allegations made round the Internet in striking and very public and repeated fashion (including at Biggovernment.com.) To come out with a headline that reads “Inquiry Determines Further Investigation Is Needed” in light of these facts, and the actual findings, is being purposefully misleading.

The very first sentence to the piece is also misleading:

In looking at four “possible allegations” of research misconduct against meteorology professor Michael Mann, a Penn State University panel has determined that further investigation is warranted for one of them

People have short attention spans, the most relevant points are put first (except here at Donkasaurus Post, were we expect you to be bored before you have even gotten past the title.) Only at the end of a long sentence is it noted that further investigation is warranted for “one” of them, meaning, by exclusion, not the other three. But there is no mention that Mann was exonerated on all three of the first three allegations. Or what they were, in comparison to the “fourth charge.”

No mention in the second paragraph either. Or the third. Or the fourth. But what is mentioned in the fourth paragraph, instead?

I suspect panel members are secretly hoping someone else will shoulder responsibility for determining Mann’s guilt or innocence.

Note: “Mann’s guilt or innocence.” And his guilt or innocence over what, exactly? This article has never told the reader, who is only informed by finding allusion to it, buried deep in the recital of the official press release that is included as part of the piece, finally.: That is, his “guilt” or “innocence” as to having “engaged in practices that seriously deviate from accepted practices.” (Note also that the sentence strongly implies that the panel came to no decisions whatsoever, although it is true that the first sentence does somewhat implicitly contradict this.)

For a site that is presumably concerned with “Big Government,” that sounds more than a bit “Big Brotherish.” But it’s probably not intended as such; but instead, only as much spin as can be gotten away with, to make it seem like the gap between the intense hype and heavy accusations against Mann that reverberated around the Internet and even into the mainstream media, and what Mann actually did, is not nearly as large, as in fact, it is.

As long as we are using the terms “guilt or innocence” completely inappropriately; on charges of blatantly misleading its readers, Biggovernment.com is found guilty by this panel, of the charges leveled against it…

..Namely, we’ll bury deep down in the repeated press release, of “seriously misleading its readers.” Unfortunately, “seriously misleading its readers,” is not a very big deviation from “accepted practices.”

And that is the problem, in America, today.

One final point: why does the “Green Room” never give space to articles from “global warming sceptics”? Where is the platform for these views on the BBC? The odd reader’s comment sneaked at the bottom of the usual “warmist” article is not enough. Wang, brussels, belgium

Exactly.

And another question for the Donkeys at the BBC. is this: When are you going to give space to articles from those skeptical that those running the BBC aren’t really Australian Giraffes posing as news reporters. How come you never give space to this?

What are you, biased?

And what about the idea that the earth is really a vanilla fudge pudding cake deep inside it’s core (which we should definitely be harvesting right now to end starvation throughout the world).

Oh, those that think this is sarcasm are thinking: But climate change is different. We don’t really know.

True. We don’t. Here is what we do know, however, with almost the same level of certainty as that we know that the core of the earth is not vanilla fudge pudding, or that the B.B.C. is not run from robotoids from an alien planet, or by the secret Australian Giraffe society. In blockquote form not because it is a quote, but for emphasis:

Heat drives climate ultimately, Oceans drive climate more directly. Heat warms oceans. It takes years and years, if not many decades, to change oceans from an external climate forcing such as volcanic aerosols, solar flareups, or increased heat trapping gases in the atmosphere.

There is a lot of carbon trapped in the ocean bottoms and in what is right now frozen (but increasingly melting) permafrost. There is enough ice at the poles to raise oceans hundreds of feet, our recent theories as to how long it would take for these to melt have been obliterated in the last ten years as we learn more about how feedback effects lead to increasingly higher levels of melting and heat absorption, and most of the actual observed warming so far has unfortunately taken place at the poles.

We know as a matter of physics that greenhouses gases trap heat, and that their presence in the first place makes life on earth as we know it possible. Our current levels of the two most important heat trapping gases, CO2 and CH4, are significantly higher than at any point in the past three quarters of a million years. We don’t know this with absolute certainty but we do know that this is what the frozen ice core record tells us, and that no one has yet been able to come up with a reason as to why frozen samples of the atmosphere dating back hundreds of thousands of years somehow froze the wrong atmospheres.

We also know that these increases are directly tied to very specific anthropomorphic activities. We also know that climate is not monotonic, and that what happens from one year to the next, or even over several years, is close to irrelevant in terms of what our ultimate effect upon long term climate conditions is going to be as a result of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from increased net emissions and other activities.

We know significant melting is currently underway in the Arctic, that it is accelerating, and that we are very slowly starting to see early signs of the same types of significant changes in the far more stable, larger, colder (and right now, due to increased evaporation and precipitation, increasing) Antarctica. We know, even though shorter term trends are of little significance, that 2009 is likely to come in as the second warmest year on record, and that four of the five warmest years on record will have occurred this (past) decade.  The fifth one in the group (and the warmest on record according to the WMO, the second warmest according to NASA) was 12 years ago, in 1998.

Now, half of what you just read you probably just learned for the first time, right? (And are probably programmed to be skeptical about, from all the misinformation out there, so do some research from pure scientific, non ideological, non political, non industry tied, sources. We left out most of the links here for that reason. We are not trying to convince you of anything.  Do the research.)  So how can this country have an intelligent conversation on the topic if even the basic facts are not known, or repeatedly misconstrued or misrperesented?

We can’t. And we are not. Instead we are getting inanity like this. From arguably the third most influential commentator in America. (Take a look at number two on that list, and ponder how much accurate information on climate change and science that person is dispensing.)  And one of the nation’s most influential newspapers,according to Washington insiders and politicians.

So what is “climate skepticism”?  It is slang for those who don’t want to think we can affect the physical world around us in this way and so have taken confusion over what we don’t know, and uncertainty over what we can not know with certainty, as a substitute for what we do.  That is not point counterpoint. That is science and anti science.  And it is what is happening right now in our debate today.

Part of the problem is lack of clarity on the issue itself, as the scientist writing in the BBC article from which the quote above was taken, points out. But it’s not just scientists faults (their job is to study science, not sell it to people.) It is the media’s fault.  And this idea, popularized by such ideas that “balance” means simply taking a view that people want to represent regardless of the facts, and turning it into some sort of coequal side to a reasonable debate, along with quite possibly the idea that the media doesn’t really understand the issue, that is causing this. Here is another example, where one of the country’s leading media sources apparently couldn’t even step up to the plate and back up which “unnamed” scientists they relied upon for their rather misleading, “false balance” assertions.

The media has been doing this here in America for over ten years now. And worse on other issues. Climate change, ultimately, is pure science.  Also, while it involves large uncertainties, and a very unrecognized and large lag between most causes and effects, it also involves objective versus subjective analysis. And the media has even been botching this also, in the name of “false balance.”

Propagated further by the boilerplate idea of “climate skepticism” as opposed to the very sound idea of scientific challenge to widespread scientific presumption, on scientific, non ideological grounds. The latter is always healthy.  The former, driven my ideological motivations, fervent, non science beliefs, and riddled with misinformation and half truths, does nothing to further debate, but only serves to undermine it, if anything.

If six minutes to midnight sounds bad, consider that until just recently, it was five minutes to midnight.

The scientist give two reasons for this.  One seems reasonable, the other does not.

The first has to do with efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation.  It seems sensible enough. The other reason given, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is:

And for the first time ever, industrialized and developing countries alike are pledging to limit climate-changing gas emissions that could render our planet nearly uninhabitable.

We don’t think climate change should yet be considered a doomsday scenario.  Yes, climate change will almost certainly be bad, and there is a high probability of rapidly accelerating feedback effects taking hold:

But, also, a lot of people that purchased beach front property in Arizona are going to make a lot of money. And boat owners will see a sharp rise in their commodity and its source of use.

Those who love really hot deserts and find peace and tranquility in places like California’s “death valley” should also be happy (though, unfortunately, death valley itself will be well under water).

So we are not sure that climate change, while likely very bad, and, potentially, extremely bad, should necessarily occupy a place alongside potential nuclear annihilation just yet.

However, that is not the real problem with the climate change point that these scientists make.

Notice what these scientists say.  ”For the first time ever… are pledging to limit climate changing gases.”

Technically this is true. Over a decade ago, not all industrialized and non industrialized countries made such pledges. Only most did. And since that time, have done little to nothing to give those pledges any meaning.

Likewise, a relevant admonition for these scientists now: “Pledges” mean next to nothing.

Particularly when the debate in the country that is the world leader, is still essentially a medieval flat earth society type debate of science versus anti science ideology driven rhetoric, or wildly uninformed yet boldly assertive ideology posing as science; not one of “what are the likely outcomes, what is the most sensible outcome to take.” We think these scientists are not seeing the full picture.

Indeed, in the U.S., we are one step short of simply arguing against physics itself, at this point.

Quoting from the link itself (NRO’s gloriously subjective “The Corner” blog, with emphasis added):

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this UN session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Yes, no reliable records of global surface temperature indeed would mean that climate change does not exist!

All the following, accepted, incontrovertible facts

1. That during the industrial age the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen nearly 38 percent
2. That at no time in history according to the geologic record has it ever shifted this rapidly, and by at least an order of magnitude or more
3. That concomitant with this rise, mankind is decreasing carbon sinks through deforestation, and putting out massive amounts of CO2 that took millions of years to accumulate via the burning of fossil fuels, as well as high levels of other greenhouse gases such as methane via broad ranging livestock domestication, and that this rise can be directly attributable to anthropomorphic activities as a result
4. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap heat that would otherwise radiate back out of the atmosphere
5. Heat drives climate
6. We are conducting an enormous and wild long term scientific experiment on the earth as a result, with no controls (that is, sister planets that are otherwise identical save for the anthropomorphic induced greenhouse gas concentration increases)

Would all disappear!  Presto, like magic.

This idea was probably very appealing to Insta-BS, since for some reason, since it is (wrongly) believed that changing over to sensible fuel sources would cut rather than simply alter the nature and makeup of long term “economic” production, it is almost de rigeuer among staunch conservatives for many years — years during which all of the above six facts were well known, and incontrovertible — to deny climate change as a fallacy, or perhaps as a hoax. (As Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe still contends).

But we don’t know, Insta BS has become a bit of a practical environmentalist… still, if we could make all that data disappear? 

This is great fun. In fact, the NRO guest columnist who penned this otherwise rather interesting piece, Cato Institute fellow Patrick J. Michaels, almost as much as noted this when he began a subsequent paragraph in this interesting, but “dry” piece, thusly: 

Now begins the fun.

Now, indeed.

While not always in agreement, we’re rather fans of the Cato Institute, but believe them to go a bit awry when allowing politics to enter into the analysis of what is pure science, on what is also, as suggested, the mistaken belief that not what we sensibly choose, but what we happened to have earlier gotten used to relying upon, must persist as the solid driver of long term prosperity.

We’re also fans, sometimes, of rather long sentences. 

And short ones.  Like this.  See.