Climate change global editorial | Hacker News Reader

Climate change global editorial

guardian.co.uk

4 pointsGupie6 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com