I’m glad Dan did a post on “Climategate” earlier this morning. As usual, he took the words right out of my head.
I wanted to add my thoughts but then got my daily email from the Wall St. Journal Online. James Taranto sums it up better than I:
What the [Washington] Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?
It makes me think of the SEIU thugs at the Tea Parties this summer… and the Black Panthers in Philadelphia brandishing weapons and blocking voters in November 2008.
As the Joker might say, “Why the intimidation?”
UPDATE: Rand Simberg says this at PajamasMedia…
In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
“Everything begins in mystery and ends in politics.” -Charles Péguy.
Man made global warming is all politics now. Consensus science is all politics. Suppression is all politics. To go back in the scientific consensus to reexamine the mystery is political suicide. The stage is set and the play has begun. No time to rewrite or recast the villain, we must press on.
This is all about Al Gore. These people were being very political. You can see it from the emails with certain contacts like the WWF.
It reminds me of the scandal involving Dr. William McBride. Now McBride did good work. He discovered that Thalidomide had caused serious birth defects. In fact I do not doubt that research because the outcome of pregnant women taking Thalidomide was very obvious. They took it as an anti-nausea drug. There are other drugs that could be taken by women that are equally dangerous eg. drugs taken for skin conditions but that is not the point here – these drugs carry a warning and no woman should become pregnant if taking the drugs because of the risk of birth defect.
However, there was another drug on the market – Debendox – and I had that drug for three pregnancies without any problems, i.e. my children did not have birth defects. However, a couple in Florida (I think that is where they were) had a child with birth defects and wanted to blame Debendox. McBride was asked to do an experiment to see if this was the case, and he falsified information. They sued the manufacturer of the drug and based on the McBride testimony they won the lawsuit. Eventually it was revealed that McBride had falsified the information to obtain a positive outcome.
This is what we have in this scandal.
The man made climate change global warming thing was always weird. conservatives knew it didn’t make any sense. Any common sense. How can man change the weather and the climate. Why wouldn’t we just target a country like Canada and make it like Tennessee. Cause we can’t. It is liberals who don’t think who buy this stuff hook line and sinker. Unthinking elitest liberals. Thanks to the hacker who got this inside info and scam. He was a hacker and that’s illegal but can’t you call this person a hero someone who shined the sunlite on a hoax. He is a whistle blower iin my mind and should get all the protections of one.
Now,,…. for the liberals in here. You were wrong about Obama, wrong about global warming wrong about climate change, wrong about the stimulus, wrong about Obamacare, wrong about cash for clunkers, wrong about Iraq, wrong about Afghanistan, wrong about Copenhagen, could you just move over and let some adults take the helm and get things right? Are your reading about Obama’s post Asia trip reviews. He got nothing and they laughed at him. Jimmy Carter II?? Carter didn’t start out this bad, I’ll remind you. Obamas surrounded himself with tons of boobs. After Fort Hood shouldn’t Napalatano be fired? After 10.2% unemployment 18% under employment, shouldn;t tax cheat Geirhner be fired? After the lost money in the stimulus shouldn’t Biden be fired?
#3. The liberals/dems would say they should be graded on what their “efforts” were and not on the outcomes. Furthermore, its their good “feelings” about what they attempted to accomplish and not what actually happened. Unfortunately, reality that is very harsh will catch up with them – after they get severance packages, financial payoffs, etc.
The terms “climategate” and “global warmists” give me a good laugh. Such terminology is a sure sign any good sense has left the debate. Much like when the terms “teabagger” and “birther” started being tossed around.
There are plenty of solid scientific observations that indicate something odd might be happening around the globe, but we do not have nearly the whole picture. Not enough to base political action on.
DRH-
Not enough to base political action on.
I completely agree. It is called WEATHER & CLIMATE CHANGE. And it has been plaguing the Earth for billions of years.
Why is the current party in power so hell bent on destroying the American economic growth potential when there is not enough information to base political action on?
Control, folks. Control.
We must keep an eye on the Big Picture and not get lost in the details. There are three major items in the Big Picture: 1) the CRU and Hadley folks have not been doing science for at least ten years, but have spent all that time massaging data to fit preconceived notions and, by the by, trashing their own databases; 2) they have conspired to suppress critical publications and critics; and 3) they have illegally rejected FOIA requests and conspired to destroy items requested. That is one ugly Big Picture.
I am someone who is undecided about AGW. I am eager to find simple, concisely stated theories that I can use in making predictions. When I run across something like the CRU-Hadley affair, I conclude that these folks have used my taxes and betrayed my trust. These are the very folks who should be busting butt to communicate with me. Instead, they behave like burned-out old men for whom the fire of scientific research and explanation died long ago. Now, all they do is massage data and hawk it to folks of a particular political persuasion. You can test my point. Search the emails for the words ‘theory’ and ‘model’. You will find that they occur hardly at all.
In conclusion, one major contributor to the science of AGW has proved to have been DOA for at least ten years. That is a huge loss to those who would like to persuade me that AGW is something real and worthy of political sacrifice now. This much has been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I will be FASCINATED to see how much funding these centers and “scientists” received from George Soros and his many foundations. My Spidey sense tells me there will be direct ties.
“WEATHER & CLIMATE CHANGE”
(groan)
gee, I guess thats an improvement over “its called weather”…
Seriously Bruce, why embarrass yourself like this? If you want to mount an argument about AGW, then deal with the issue in at least a semi-serious manner.
Why does this have to be repeated. The issue here has NOTHING to do with “weather”. Its climate. Its the heat budget of the planet, and the amount of carbon that is artificially being pumped into the ecosystem-level carbon cycle.
Eveyone knows that climate is always changing. At a certain rate. SLOWLY. Human-induced climate change is very rapid. That is the problem. If all the climate change caused by humans could be spaced out over several thousand years, it would be far less of an issue. Species could adapt. Humans could adapt. We could slowly shift our cities and infrastructure inland, we could abandon certain agricultural areas and open up new ones. We have, in fact, been doing that over the past 10 thousand years since the last ice age.
But if it happens over decades or a hundred or two years, we are screwed. The dislocations will be enormously damaging to life, and certainly to economics. Don’t give me your crocodile tears about what will happen to our economy if we move to alternative fuels, when the cost of doing nothing will greatly exceed that.
Translating Tano:
yep, that about sums it up
Tano-
Just because you are writing the story to fit the lies you have been told, doesn’t mean I have to agree and acquiese.
Why that would be downright Environmental Fascism, would it not?
Wow Bruce. Is that really your only response?
Its “fascism’ to expect you to at least deal with a thoughtful, reasonable explanation for why I think you are wrong?
You have nothing to say about the issues I raise?
Tano-
You raise no “issues”. Your arguments are based on conjecture, emotion and bias. No facts.
You are a living sock puppet, bud.