Climategate: CRU scientists deserve Nobel Prizes – and very probably Knighthoods too – claims reasonable and unbiased New Scientist magazine

The Climategate scientists did nothing wrong.

So says New Scientist magazine in its latest edition.

This New Scientist is, of course, absolutely no relation whatsoever to the New Scientist whose reporting was singled out for praise by the Climategate scientists in the following email:

From: “Michael E. Mann” <>
To: Phil Jones <>
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400

yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!

New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!

(That “HS” stands for the Hockey Stick, by the way. Gosh that would be embarrassing, wouldn’t it? If you were a supposedly authoritative science magazine and you were found being praised by fraudulent scientists for your help in turd-polishing their fraudulent science?)

Anyway, the magnificent Jo Nova has done a really good number on New Scientist in her blog:

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps  away any journalistic credibility they might have had.

And New Scientists readers agree with her. How strongly they agree with her can be seen by the number of deleted comments at the New Scientist website.

Here is a more-in-sorrow-than-anger comment which sums up New Scientist’s decline rather poignantly.

I’ve just had an email asking me to come back to the fold or something after more than a decade of subscriptions. I’ve read NS since the days when it was printed on pulp and reported on the Zeta project. In Officers’ Messes around the world I’ve suggested to the Committee that they get a copy for the anteroom, read it in libraries and left it out so others can stumble upon it. For years my daughter gave me a subscription for my Christmas present.

It took two years before she took my hints (which in the end became a straight-out order) not to bother.

NS has abandoned all pretence that it is written for anyone with an unbiased view of the AGW debate. Every other page has a piece, written at the level of a Sun editorial, about how the sky is falling. All else is ignored in favour of a hysterical repetition of ‘the world is in trouble and it’s your fault. No it may not be and no it probably isn’t. So my daughter now has to buy me something else and your readership has gone down by one. Mark that, particularly — it was free and I don’t read it. You couldn’t even give it away.

Too bad the eco-evangelists corrupted what was a really useful bit of journalism. I hope the reporters get new jobs when it folds — at least those reporters with something on their CVs other than a list of barmy articles about global warming.

Julian Flood

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!
  2. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  3. ‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report
  4. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters


Liked it? Take a second to support James on Patreon!