Last week, I wrote two posts questioning Newsweek‘s cover story calling global warming crusader Al Gore “a thinking man’s thinking man.” I held it was wrong to consider him a thinking man because the former Vice President refuses to debate those who contest his theory of anthropogenic global warming. Not just that, he claims repeatedly that the debate is over, that scientists have reached a consensus in favor of his favorite theory when, in fact, they haven’t.
Wonder how that thinking man is reacting to the e-mails released on Friday showing that some of the leading advocates of his theory had been doctoring the data, perpetrating, in the words of one lawyer who has read those e-mails, “a knowing and deliberate hoax.”
But, if this guys were really such dispassionate fellows, thinking guys, you know, what did they harbor so much animus against scientists who reached different conclusions in studying the same phenomena? According to the Washington Post, Al Gore’s allies in the scientific community, had “venomous feelings toward skeptics“:
And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
So, instead of putting the work out the questioning academics out there so it can be reviewed and dismissed (which they should easily be able to do if their science doesn’t hold up), they want to suppress it.
Interesting how the Post article, while revealing the tactics of intellectual intimidation practiced by advocates of anthropogenic global warming concludes not with what the revelation of these tactics means for the debate on global warming, but by reverting to norm (as if nothing had changed). Post writer Juliet Eilperin even ends her article by quoting such advocates who continue to maintain evidence of such warming is “incontrovertible,” therefore, maintaining the only question is what to do.
Um, actually, no, the e-mails reveal that the evidence is not so incontrovertible, indeed, suggests it is very “controvertible.” Whether Eilperin wants to accept it or not, the status of the debate has changed these past 72 hours. There is more information available now to buttress the case of global warming skeptics, much of it in the very hand of those who seek to ignore their arguments.
One might better believe those critical of the skeptics if they expressed their criticism through scientific arguments rather than emotional outrbursts (or by attempts to suppress their findings).Those advocates of the anthropogenic theory of global warming really do want to keep us in the dark. Not only do they wish to suppress (or otherwise ignore) the work of scientists at odds with their theory, but they also wish to hide their own data, consistently refusing outsiders access to their data. What a strange aversion to the public disclosure of information.
You’d think thinking men would want that information out there. I mean, if they had a strong case, why would they fear opposing arguments–which should be, if they’re so right, easy to dismiss?
FROM THE COMMENTS: No wonder Eilperin concluded her article the way she did. Our reader Theo Goodwin reveals that on this issue, she hcan be hardly considered a disinterested journalist:
Yesterday, November 22, in a blog post on American Thinker, Clarice Feldman revealed that Ms. Eilperin, not to mention the NYT, has a conflict of interest as a journalist. Her husband is employed by a think tank that fans the flames of global warming.