ES&T #2: Media Coverage

One of the points made by ES&T to supposedly marginalize the Wall Street Journal article was:

Although most other U.S. newspapers, with the notable exception of the New York Times, also provide minimal coverage of climate change studies in science journals, ES&T found no other newspaper that reported on the McIntyre and McKitrick article.

The suggestion that there has been a lack of media interest in our research is a curious place for ES&T to stand and the claim that "no other" newspaper reported article on the article does not say very much for ES&T research competence. Perhaps they got Naomi Oreskes to do their literature search.

If they had done the following exotic research technique: look at the sidebar on this blog entitled
News and Commentary, they would have located articles about our critique in Nature, Science, The Economist, National Post (Canada), Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (Holland), Global TV (Canada), Netwerk (Dutch TV), BBC TV, Technology Review (Germany), Das Erste (Germany), Frankfurter Allgemeine (Germany), Toronto Globe and Mail, Sydney Morning Herald and Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Swiss). A little googling would have shown coverage of our first article in USA Today and both articles in UPI. Within the blog universe, there has been remarkable interest: googling on variations of mcintyre mckitrick mann climate hockeystick turns up endless hits.

While we appreciated the coverage in the Wall Street Journal, the story was covered extensively elsewhere.

Update: We have also been covered at one point or another by The Observer (U.K.), the Australian Financial Review, the Vancouver Sun, the Calgary Herald, Suddeutsche Zeitung (German(, De Volksrant (Holland), Berlingske Indland (Denmark), Svenska Dagblader (Sweden), Computer Sweden, the Taipei Times. I could find others with a little more digging; t’s hard to keep track of it all.

Conversely, ES&T referred to an article by James Hansen as one that warranted coverage. I did a quick google to see whether Hansen had been covered in these foreign media. I did google checks with hansen against Frankfurter Allgemeine, Neue Zürcher, Das Erste, Natuurwetenschap & Techiek and the National Post and was unable to locate any coverage. So I don’t see that the WSJ has to apologize for covering our story. Regardless of the ultimate scientific disposition of our articles (and, in my opinion, no one has laid a glove on any of our reported findings), the story was getting a lot of international coverage and was newsworthy.


  1. John Cross (John C)
    Posted Sep 1, 2005 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    Steve: I may be picking nits here, but I think they were implying that they searched U.S.
    Newspapers. With the exception of the Economist which is both a newpaper and a magazine I
    don’t think the others qualify under this criteria. However your point is taken and I
    suspect that other cases could be found.

    By the way. I commend you for your post about Tim B’s extraordinarily poor taste. I couldn’t
    have said it better myself so I didn’t try.


  2. àƒ'?anàƒËœ
    Posted Sep 1, 2005 at 10:13 AM | Permalink


    I audited…er…searched LexisNexis for US newspapers for the term ‘McIntyre and McKitrick’ in ‘General News’ for the last two (2) years.

    I found (n=17, 2 dups, 1 letter to Ed.):

    o Global-warming debate heats up all the way to Capitol Hill, USA TODAY, November 19, 2003, Wednesday,, FINAL EDITION, LIFE;, Pg. 11D, 623 words, Dan Vergano [From a statistical viewpoint, “I lean in favor of Mann,” says statistician George Shambaugh of Georgetown University. “There is an increase in the 20th century that is greater than the cyclical patterns found by either group since 1550. And since the early 1900s, we have been hotter than any time since then.” ]

    o Researchers question key global-warming study, USA TODAY, October 29, 2003, Wednesday,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. 21A, 730 words, Nick Schulz [golly, Nick Schulz, there’s a surprise!]

    The rest of the non-dup hits were either for the Barton deal (n=5) from furriner papers (n=7), or a letter to the editor. I haven’t calculated the r^2 for the erroneous statement about the USA today articles, but I suspect some of the Posse here will find the error rate so egregious that the article thus has no value.



  3. John A
    Posted Sep 3, 2005 at 1:39 AM | Permalink

    By the way. I commend you for your post about Tim B’s extraordinarily poor taste. I couldn’t have said it better myself so I didn’t try.

    I missed this. Where?

%d bloggers like this: