Once in a while, roughly every month or two, Daily Mailjournalist David Rose likes to focus his laser-like mind on the twistingswindlers of the so-called scientific community, and write a big exposé of theGreat Climate Hoax. He’s an expert on hoaxes, and so would never be caught out by one himself. You would think.
In the four-page version published in theMail on Sunday on 17 ;March, he calls climate science the ;“Great Green Con”. And, when David writes one of his exposés, Carbon Brief like to exposehis errors. ;
Well, they used to like to do that. These days it’s turninginto a bit of a chore. But they keep doing it, so that we don’t have to. ThankGore for Carbon Brief.
They’re not entirely alone.David Rose’s interviewees sometimes take to the internet to explain that they didn’tsay what he said they said, because they’re scientists. Andthen there are the part-time Rose critics, who think they want to catalogueRose’s errors, but generally collapse from exhaustion and despair after two orthree articles.
However, while it pains me to have to level any criticismat such a noble endeavour, they missed a bit.
Despite an entire publishing empire being dedicated to themistakes of this one man, including several pieces on this particular article,Carbon Brief and, so far as I’m aware, everyone else ;missed a particularly shameful, extraordinary insult to journalismfrom Rose which it is mypleasure and privilege to share with you now. In your face, CarbonBrief.
In the Great Green Con, as with all Mail articles, much of the real creativityhas gone into the sidebar, in this case a little bundle of joy entitled: “1977 – the year we were told to fear terror of… ;global cooling”.
I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Fear terror?Wasn’t that Franklin Delano Roosevelt?” No, that was “the only thing we have tofear is fear itself”. This is a very different FDR. The DR standsfor David Rose, and the F doesn’t stand for Franklin.
The first line of the sidebar reads:
In the Seventies,scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ asthey have been lately about global warming – as the Time magazine coverpictured here illustrates.
And here’s the Time magazine cover pictured, illustratingaway in the middle of the Mail on Sunday:
And here’s a close up of that Time magazine cover, note thedate in the top right-hand corner, April 1977:
And here’s Time Magazine’s website where you can searchthrough all of their covers, here showing all four editions from April 1977.
You see any penguins? Me neither. This is most p-p-p-peculiar.
Let’s widen our search a little. Let’s say, every editionpublished in April during a year ending in the number 7.
By George, I think I’ve found it! Oh no, this one’sdifferent. No wait, it is, no it isn’t. It looks similar, but… well, what do youreckon?
Special double issue, eh? Little did they know…
2007? Global warming? What is going on here? I’ve tweeted Rose ;to ask him where his cover came from, but have yet to receive any reply.
Has Rose understoodthat his line on climate science has no evidential support, and socreated a fabrication to try to even things up a bit? Rose doesn’t seem like a man whowould voluntarily die for his cause, even if it’s only career suicide, so I think not.
But has Rose, a man who calls himself an investigative journalistand thinks he has an unparalleled ability tospot flaws in high-level science which qualified experts have all missed,really been taken in by a forgery of a Time magazine cover?Just about the easiest document to authenticate one could possiblyimagine, and he’saccepted it from some unknown source on theinternet and put it straight into the Mail on Sunday without checking?
This isalmost unbelievable, but as George Monbiot wrote about the errors in a previous MoSpiece by Rose:
Every one of them would havebeen easy to check and disprove, had he been inclined to do so. But the Mailpays well for this crap, and checking, under these circumstances, is likely tobe an expensive pastime.
Shame on you, David Rose. Atriple-decker shame sandwich with shame garnish and a side order of extra shame to add toyour shame collection.
(Thanks to David Kirtley ;for the tip.)
For those readers interested in the truth about the great1970s ice age scare, I’ve posted another blog here. ;
In summary, the deniers are wrong, the climate scientistswere right.