One of the themes we have dealt with repeatedly is bias: in global warming reporting and research, especially statistical bias. Bias in the media against the Ron Paul campaign is becoming a big issue.
Above is a clip of people telling Dana Bash, a CNN news reporter, what they thought of her biased reporting. One incident was were Dana reported that Republicans in general were worried “like I am” that RP would continue on and hurt her presumptive nominee Mitt Romney.
In another hilarious clip from Jon Stewart, a pundit from MSNBC reports with a straight face on RPs second in New Hampshire, that if your take RP out, then Jon Huntsman is the REAL second. “You can’t do that!” says Jon. “Its physics! (mocking on) And you know if you add two zeros to the end of Huntsman’s total he would have been in first place by thousands of votes. Why is no-one talking about this? (mocking off) Because it didn’t happen!”
Moving on to climate science and the IPCC, Steve McIntyre has written a couple of posts on the blatant bias in the AR5 draft, one of the most obvious being the suppression of his and McKitrick’s peer-reviewed paper demolishing a Santer defense of climate models.
As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was not identified to us as such). Ross eventually managed to get similar results published in another journal.
Jean S points out in a comment on the Steig thread that our findings were completely misrepresented by IPCC chapter 10 (also the source of disinformation about Steig).
Our article stated that there was a statistically significant difference between models and observations in the tropical troposphere. Instead of citing our articles as rebutting Santer’s assertions, IPCC cites us as endorsing Santer’s false assertions:
That the IPCC authors would ignore peer-reviewed papers that contradict the consensus view comes as no surprise, which is why the IPCC should be added, in the words of Richard Muller, to the list of people to no longer read.
But passively not reading is not enough, which is the point of the Dana Bash clip above.
Steve McIntyre now reports that he, and others, have received a cease-and-desist order for publishing excerpts from the AR5 draft. Its a long story, but apparently after the brouhaha over the lack of transparency in the IPCC, and the IAC recommendations for greater transparency, they have been beavering away, changing the IPCC rules.
The IPCC Procedures in Article 4.2 of the Principles Governing IPCC Work state that “The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.” (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf). We therefore request the immediate removal of the ZOD chapters from your website.
The response of government scientists to calls for greater transparency is less transparency. After all, how could they promulgate their biased warming-related agendas if they were required to be fair? How could they satisfy their task-masters?
The parallel with the Ron Paul campaign, is that we see a closing of the ranks, and an intensification of the bias. Fortunately there are plenty of alternative media outlets now, and opportunities to “snowball” bias and corruption.
The capacity for “snowballing” is why Steve McIntyre has been such an inspiration to all of us too.