My opinion/speculation of how Dr Hansen might view “Too HOT …” , does not change.

There are other examples, but Dr Trenberth is featured in this documentary; and he was allowed or edited to allow free reassertion of his expressed or implied belief that the scientific evidence conclusively links storm strength with AGW. That controversial position has been discussed on both Prometheus and RC.

Drs Hansen and Schneider also get their stage, along with many other AGW proponents (again without balancing or opposing view). Their commentaries are often juxtaposed with extreme individual WEATHER events, 100+ year “before and after” photos, high-end warming/melting estimates, and a ludicrously simplified greenhouse analogy, all used liberally to scare the viewer in the first half* of this broadcast. Quite simply, the editing of the first part of this show, can easily be characterized as AGW Alarmist — an unrefuted, expressed or implied view of AGW as an imminent disaster in the making.

Getting back to the point of this thread, the fingerprints of advocacy of Ms Hassol and Ms David are obvious to those with more than a modest background in the science — they are not scientists, and it shows in the product that they produced and released. The product itself is evidence of Dr Pielke’s submission of a double-standard in the press or viewership that review and embrace the first half content of this audio-video report. I suspect that Dr Hansen himself would be critical of this program, the 1st half is a clear example of the scare/alarmist positions that he (and more recently, the BBC) has warned against recently. BUT, I believe this is a product funded primarily from the private sector — and private sector funded propaganda happens all the time.

* Note: the 2nd half of the program, is more focused on what we can do as inhabitants of earth. IMO, this segment was more useful and less preachy, suggesting individual practices that help LOCAL, regional, and therefore global environmental concerns.

If I am in a contest and I want to succeed then I would be happy if I had an advantage over my competitor. I would make sure that I retained this competitive edge, and I would scream foul if the situation were reversed.

This is standard operating procedure for some people in some professions. There are many attorneys, lobbyists and activists would say honestly that this is not fair, but if it benefited them they would be happy about it.

I should have clarified by saying that when Prometheus posts are included in the EPA climate news roundup (including this post on conflict of interest, interestingly), they are grouped under the “opinion/editorial” heading.

“Microjournalism” is a pretty apt description. Clearly microjournalism and the universe of macrojournalism are bleeding into each other more and more …

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/jaaj-sar042006.php
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/295/16/1921

Moreover, Ms. Hassol’s views were quite well known to the committee which hired her, and the climate science community in general, and you can show nothing that she did which was improper. In the case of Cooney there are issues on which his actions and statements have, as you said, been shown to be improper and moreover wrong. Admittedly you have attempted to elide the last point by saying that his actions/edits were irrelevant. Do you think his actions with respect to the US Climate Action Report were irrelevant?

I will admit to some surprise at the intensity of reponses to this issue among some, on what is really a pretty run-of-the-mill issue in my view, with far less significance than, say, the issues of conflict-of-interest I have raised in the past related to IPCC, FDA, NRC, Bioethics Council, and national science academies. The responses on this thread are far more telling than whatever issues might arise as a result of Ms. Hassol’s potential conflict of interest. And for that reason alone, this has been an illuminating set of exchanges. As far as the question that I opened the discussion with, it is safe to say that an answer has been provided.

Thanks.

Thus Santer’s response is completely warrented as in his professional observation of her work he does not consider her editing work to have been improper.

In the case of Cooney, we clearly see that he has injected his political views into his editing. In the case of Hassol, you have shown no such thing, indeed Santer strongly denies it. EVEN if you believed this to be the case, the technical members of the committee had final approval of Hassol’s work, while Cooney’s edits were the final word.

The voice of authority is merely a flak, but the source of all knowledge is a policy making position. Clearly Hassol was acting in the former capacity, but Cooney in the latter.

Finally, unless you can show that the NRC panel saw the versions of the CCSP Strategic Plan before Cooneys edits and after you really can say very little about the NRC approval or the plan, which in many regards was grudging especially with respect to political influence on the program.

I have never thought of Prometheus as “journalism.” Though sometimes we have “reported” stuff here. It is in my view much more like an editorial/op-ed page.

Whatever we are, we strive for 100% accuracy in what we discuss, so in that sense I suppose we are like many journalists. When we make inevitable mistakes we correct them, and anyone that has a different view, including those whose work is discussed here has an invitation to contribute or respond.

Suggestions and recommendations are always welcomed.

Thanks!