Another Climate Denier Scandal: Will Media Ever Treat Them Skeptically?

A paper came out a couple of months ago questioning climate science. It quickly became the great shining hope of the climate science denial crowd. An actual scientific paper! Accepted by an actual scientific editor! And published in an actual scientific journal!

But a review of the paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell published in Remote Sensing is dashing the hopes of climate deniers on the rocks of reality:

• The paper itself? "Fundamentally flawed" and contains "false claims."
• The editor? Apologized for accepting the paper and resigned.
• The journal? Editorialized that the paper "should not have been published."

The question has become, how many scandals will it take for the media to apply any degree of skepticism to what climate science deniers say? Deniers hype "Climategate" - independent investigation finds no wrongdoing. Deniers attack Michael Mann - independent investigation vindicates Mann. Deniers tout work of Edward Wegman - independent investigation finds Wegman's work riddled with plagiarism & inaccuracies.

Instead, the media breathlessly hypes whatever lies the deniers push, but barely mentions the independent investigations that reveal the truth. And the scientific consensus on climate change remains as inconvenient as ever - Earth is warming, man-made carbon pollution is to blame, and we're running out of time to make the switch to clean energy as climate disasters multiply.

Time For Ken Cuccinelli To Mann Up & Apologize

Remember Edward Wegman, the George Mason University statistician whose climate denial was repeatedly cited by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli? The one who was under investigation on charges of plagiarism & inaccuracy?

The GMU investigation is still dragging on, but USA Today asked several scientists to review the allegations. Their analysis was damning:

The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report:

• "Actually fairly shocking," says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. "My own preliminary appraisal would be 'guilty as charged.'" 

• "If I was a peer reviewer of this report and I was to observe the paragraphs they have taken, then I would be obligated to report them," says Garner of Virginia Tech, who heads a copying detection effort. "There are a lot of things in the report that rise to the level of inappropriate."  

• "The plagiarism is fairly obvious when you compare things side-by-side," says Ohio State's Robert Coleman, who chairs OSU's misconduct committee.

If Ken Cuccinelli was a man, he'd apologize. To Michael Mann, the respected climate scientist whose work Cuccinelli has quixotically targeted. To Virginia taxpayers, for wasting their money on a political witch hunt. And to his own supporters for feeding them a steady stream of complete horseshit.

But Ken Cuccinelli doesn't have a shred of honor or dignity in his body. I expect him to continue to ignore reality & continue flaunting the truth.

For all of Republicans' ranting against fraud & abuse, Ken Cuccinelli has no problem using your tax dollars to campaign for Sarah Palin's affection on the 2012 Crazy Train Ticket.

Cuccinelli Fine With Fraud If It Backs His Political Views

The people who squawk the loudest about "scientific integrity" & "sound science" often have absolutely no problem with outright scientific fraud, as long as it supports their pre-existing political opinions.

Just take the example of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (and speaking volumes by their silence, Gov. Bob McDonnell & Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling). Rather than accept the simple, straightforward, proven proposition that the planet is warming & manmade emissions are to blame, Cuccinelli instead conjures a world ruled by a vast conspiracy by thousands of unrelated climate scientists, including former University of Virginia Professor Michael Mann.

But even the little actual proof Cuccinelli claims to cite is now in doubt:

A leading skeptic of climate change science whose work was cited last week by Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli is himself under investigation on charges that his work contained plagiarism and inaccuracies, a George Mason University spokesman confirmed Friday.

What's Edward Wegman accused of? As DeSmogBlog reports:

Wegman, who was chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was tapped in '06 by Republican representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield to assemble a so-called "expert panel" to critique the famous hockey stick, a graph illustrating a thousand-year temperature record as reconstructed by climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. But Silicon Valley entrepreneur John Mashey has since demonstrated that, rather than convene a group of experts, Wegman tapped a couple of grad students and together they produced a report that was generously plagiarized from Bradley's own work and then twisted - or just misrepresented - to appear to undermine the hockey stick and its creators.

Will the loss of credibility of a prominent climate denier prompt the slightest change in the stances of McDonnell, Bolling & Cuccinelli? I'm skeptical.