"Climategate was 'a game-changer' in science reporting, say climatologists", is the offering today from The Guardian. It tells us that after the "hacked" emails scandal scientists became "more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties".
Thus, ahead of publication of the Muir Russell report this Wednesday, we are told that science has been changed forever by the so-called "climategate" saga, and mostly it has been changed for the better.
One wonders if this can really be the case – especially after the recent "Amazongate" experience. But, we are allowed to read: "Trust has been damaged," the view of Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. "People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution," he says.
Nevertheless, speculation on our forum is that The Guardian has wind of some the contents of the Muir Russell report. In that case, it could be indulging in some creative damage limitation.
However, if you have the misfortune to stumble across the Daily Kos, you will discover that the "real story was that thieves hacked the private emails of respected climate scientists."
"That's a crime," we are told, and that should have been at least part of the focus of the reporting: "a false scandal was being concocted by people who were, at face value, criminals." Not content with that, the author then opines: "But the larger part of the story was that it was a deliberate effort to distort and distract from the scientific facts. That, too, should have been at least part of the reporting."
And when you read stuff life that, you know that nothing has really changed.
Comment: Moonbat thread