Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

The Discovery Institute Gets Personal

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Michael Egnor is likening me to a prostitute for defending good science in the face of the Swifthack controversy. He says my approach to journalism is equivalent to turning "tricks." Or to quote:

3) “Trick”: a work-related act performed by a prostitute.

A spot-on description of Mooney’s science journalism.

Egnor doesn't appear to understand that when a scientist uses the word "trick" in a non-public email, as Phil Jones did in the now exposed CRU correspondence, it isn't necessarily meant as either prostitution or deception. There are far more innocent possibilities--"trick" can be a cool new method or technique, for instance. That makes the particular email being referred to much less than a smoking gun. Michael Mann has more

on that. So does Phil Plait

:

These files are not evidence of fraud. I am a scientist myself, and I’m familiar with the lingo. When we say we used a "trick" to plot data (as one of the hacked emails says), that doesn’t mean we’re doing something to fool people. It means we used a method that may not be obvious, or a step that does something specific. Plotting data logarithmically instead of linearly is a "trick", and it’s a valid and useful method of displaying data (your senses of sight and hearing are logarithmic, for example, so it’s even a natural way to do things).

And even if the particular email in question was a smoking gun, as I have explained

, such proof of wrongdoing on the part of one scientist--or a small group--would not change the science of climate change, or the policy outlook, or what we have to do in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, I continue to marvel at how the anti-evolutionist Discovery Institute seems to be following exactly the same anti-science line on global warming.

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In