http://www.wanderingeducators.com/best/traveling/crying-himalayan-meltdown.html

Dead wrong: that DOES matter. It means the central animating beliefs held by the ’skeptics’ happen to be incorrect. And that’s what responsible journalists should be reporting about this hyped up ’story’ — mostly regurgitation of stuff that was posted on denial blogs months if not years ago — that the UK press has seized on and run with, that you want to US press to follow suit on.

Every week/month/year that such lazy, sensationalist reporting sets back action on global warming, should be a matter of shame to journalists. Every doubt-casting quote from a professional nonscientist AGW ’skeptic’ (like your friend Roger Pielke Jr. or the odious Monckton in the UK) paired in he said/she said fashion with the views of bona fide climate scientists, is a small outrage against reason.

Could be the climate scientists/bloggers at RealClimate agree with me —

“So far, so stupid. But even more concerning is the reaction from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators – Curtis Brainard at CJR and Tom Yulsman in Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point apparently seems to be that since much news print is being devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth following.”

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/

And contrary to what you wrote, that DOES matter.

“February 03, 2010
Allison C. LernerInspector General
National Science Foundation
Office of Inspector General
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22230

Dear Ms. Lerner:

This is a follow-up to my letter of December 2, 2009 and concerns today’s announcement by Penn State University that it has concluded its initial inquiry into possible research misconduct by one of the University’s researchers, Dr. Michael Mann. Penn State’s internal inquiry found further investigation is warranted to determine if Dr. Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”

While I firmly agree that Penn State’s investigation is warranted and must commence without delay, there are federal laws and policies implicated in this matter, including your “Research Misconduct” regulations, Title 45 CFR Part 689, that go beyond the scope of Penn State’s inquiry. Therefore, in order to have a full and complete accounting of this matter, I request that you now begin a formal investigation of the allegations against Dr. Mann.

Among other laws and regulations, I ask that you investigate compliance with, or violations of, OMB administrative procedures, 2 CFR Part 215 (OMB Circular A-110), in particular 2 CFR §215.36; Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. §552 (NSF Regulation, 45 CFR Part 612); NSF guidelines implementing OMB information quality guidelines (515 Guidelines); Federal False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. §287, and 31 U.S.C. §§3729-33; and Federal False Statements Act, 18 U.S.C §1001. Finally, given that Dr. Mann was at the University of Virginia from 1999 until 2005, I also request that you inquire whether his activities at the University of Virginia are implicated in this matter and within your jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works”

For example, I just had a look to see what sort of follow-up there had been to the Guardian’s “Chinagate” story in the aftermath of the UEA statement. So far… absolutely nothing. It looks as if you may need to retract your assertion that Phil Jones will have to face charges. I also had a look at the Watts post you linked, and near the top of the comments Watts asserts that the Guardian reporters emailed him with an alert that the story would be appearing! Isn’t that special. In fact, it’s almost as special as Daily Mail reporter David Rose’s “salute” (yes, he used that word) of McIntyre on the latter’s site.

As we were discussing in the previous post, there’s a lot of important science currently not getting covered. Which of the little that is do you propose to eject from the news hole in favor of political coverage of the IPCC?

As for RP Jr., we’re talking about somebody with a long history of complaining about being misrepresented by others, including on this very issue. You knew that, right? In any case I have the impression you haven’t had a look at the considerable body of other material that’s appeared on the web since Roger’s planted story ran. You could start with Tim’s post on the subject and then follow the links, and don’t miss the IPCC’s own refutation.

Summing up, the glacier story is real but has gotten more attention than it deserves, and the rest may be the worst example of misguided pack journalism since the run-up to the Iraq war.