Following on from the previous post about the Spencer and Braswell paper… In an ideal world journalists like Richard Black at the BBC and Leo Hickman at the Guardian would try to find out if there was something more to the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner, which they reported in their traditionally biased fashion.
But given the BBC and Guardian acolytes, among others in the media, have an agenda favourable to those who assert the world is warming and humans are to blame, what else can we expect? From to chairing conferences to delivering speeches and filing copy derived unquestioningly from press releases that enjoin people to accept at face value what they say, the BBC and Guardian.
Anything that raises questions about the actions of their friends in the alarmist ‘consensus’ is ignored or quietly shoved out of sight under the nearest convenient floor covering. Anything that goes beyond regurgitating the
This is why the blogosphere, so often derided by the oh-so-grand churnalists, is so important today. This latest example of defacto censorship by the Guardian and outrageous bias exhibited by the UK’s taxpayer funded public service broadcaster, the BBC, can again be partially countered by bloggers who put the journos to shame and act in the public interest by searching for information and sharing the salient facts and background the media has deliberately omitted or tried to leave buried.
The lastest example of this can be found at the end of this post on Watts Up With That? which reveals information about a previously unmentioned relationship between Wolfgang Wagner and arch-alarmist who has been most affronted by the Spencer and Braswell paper – to the extent that Wagner issued an apology to him for publishing the paper – Kevin Trenberth.
What has been uncovered has the capacity to shed a somewhat different light on the motivation for Wagner’s resignation as editor in chief of Remote Sensing. Yet the collective eyes, ears and mouths of the BBC and Guardian alarmists such as Richard Black and Leo Hickman will no doubt remain utterly immobile as they decide the information to be irrelevant and inconvenient to their agenda.
Dr Roy Spencer, adding to his previous thoughts on this incredible story and the reaction to the paper he co-authored, makes this comment (hat tip: Bishop Hill):
We simply cannot compete with a good-ole-boy, group think, circle-the-wagons peer review process which has been rewarded with billions of research dollars to support certain policy outcomes.
And as our focus on the media’s behaviour shows, it is an even more difficult proposition when those supposedly noble men and women of the news media – tasked with uncovering and reporting all the facts – are complicit in that group think and relay a distorted story to the general public.
Autonomous Mind 
Edit notes;
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs end badly; non-sentences, or omissions?
And “The lastest example of this” — “latest”, unless you are being jocular.
_________
If it weren’t for official and self-appointed gatekeeping positions, the BBC and Guardian would have very few writers and editors.
Well now, there’s a surprise! Who would have thought it? The editor and the “offended” Dr Trenberth are friends. And the editor let someone slip a critical paper into his carefully guarded journal.
Oh what a shame. Now, where can he find a new post where he can guard the gate a little more closely next time?
I know its unfair, but looking at those two photos all I can see is a young man trying to climb the greasy academic pole by ingratiating himself with an older, more senior, and powerful figure in his sphere of research. One cannot conceive that if the pictures were swapped that an older man would be resigning and publicly apologising to the younger one, whatever the scientific merits of the case.
“Yet the collective eyes, ears and mouths of the BBC and Guardian alarmists such as Richard Black and Leo Hickman will no doubt remain utterly immobile as they decide the information to be irrelevant and inconvenient to their agenda.”
It is worse than that: they both seem to me to be involved in the conspiracy at ground level. Both were very too fast with their stories which included dirt that would have taken time to assemble, and to my eyes those artricles were part of the a master plan to rubbish Spencer’s paper.
Look at what has happened within the space of four days.
Wagner resigns with a statement rubbishing the Spencer and Braswell paper
Within 24 hours the Guardian and BBC both publish researched articles throwing dirt at Spencer.
Today a peer reviewed rebuttal paper to Spencer and Braswell was written and rushed through the peer review process in record time (6 weeks, it took Spencer and Braswell 2 years to get through the peer review process).
:Put this in the context of the climategate email from Phil Jones ““Kevin (Trenberth I presume?) and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
This is confrimation that the climategate emails are an understatement of the lengths these guys will go to corrupt the science in order to get their perverted message across.
Looks like something bad smelling is going to hit the fan in the next two weeks, and M Mann is losing a lot of sleep worrying about it.
forgot to add the link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/06/mann-hires-attorneys-to-halt-foia-document-production/
Come on, Spencer is an avowed evangelical with a reputation for shoddy scientific work and critical thinking. I’m an American and this guy is an embarrassment…..
Reputation amongst members of the Hokey Team? His work is vastly superior to theirs. He even provides his data and model code on request! Not one of the Team has ever done that. Or even at point of FOIA gun.