This will be the last climate change post of the year. The reason it’s going up is because while I was writing tomorrow’s entry. my RSS box pinged with this blog post from Ed Darrell, which is well worth reading. It’s a simple illustration of the use of double standards.

Recently I commented on the reporting of a paper I’d put out. In particular the reporter had talked to some people who I think are mistaken about temple orientations. I don’t think they’re stupid, incompetent or corrupt, simply mistaken and I think the paper I published showed this. To save you going back here’s the relevant quote:

I’m really pleased with the way Mark Henderson has written this up. It’s not his job to preach my wonderfulness, it’s to report on how this research fits in with other research. Getting the quotes from Efrosyni Boutsikas was brilliant because it shows there’s currently two models which come to opposite conclusions. As we both publish more those models will get fleshed out and adapt. Which one will be accepted? Hers? Mine? Some kind of hybrid, or even neither? It’s not just about getting the right answer. At the moment we might not even agree on what the right answer will look like.

Rather than just take my word for it, even though he had a copy of my paper, Mark Henderson went to a couple of other people for their opinions. That’s journalism. It never occurred to me to complain about that. In fact I think it’s a better story because of it.

Now here’s an exercise in contrasts. There was a paper on climate change and this was being heralded by Marc Morano. Rather than simply accepting it the reporter, Seth Borenstein, asked an expert on the other side of the fence for an opinion. According to loud global warming insert your plural noun of choice this is unethical. The mind boggles. The presence of a death threat in the hacked emails doesn’t surprise me. As well as serious criticism the work of the CRU would have attracted all kinds of nutters like a giant idiot magnet – and the emails show this. I’d be surprised if no one at the LHC had received a death threat because that will fascinate weirdoes too. That’s not going to mean everyone who disagrees with findings published by scientists at the LHC is a freak.

But the idea that someone would complain for scientists to be investigated, and then complain about investigative reporting is nonsensical. When you’re building your case on hacked emails and conspiracy it seems over the edge of lunacy. The AP story is hardly a glowing endorsement of the CRU. There’s a clique of people angrily demanding without irony or self-awareness that the rules that apply to scientists should not apply to them.

Ed Darrell has the details. His blog is well worth following anyway as there’s a steady stream of thoughtful posts on history, the environment or the marvels of Texas.