Climategate & Leftist hypocrisy.
Having read many of the e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia writer James Delingpole summarizes six major categories, including: (1) Manipulation of evidence in favor of global warming, (2) Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, (3) Suppression of evidence contrary to their views, (4) Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Skeptic scientists, (5) Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and, (6) “how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.” [Although I think that latter one could be categorized into #3].
Indeed, it is the concerted effort to politicize and demonize any scientist with a contrary view that does the most damage to scientists — that’s right, if ideologically driven scientists can manipulate not just climate change data, but also the review of that data and even the debate itself — “The debate is over!” and other such circular reasoning — then we can suspect other scientists will attempt the same on, say, health care data [but more to that in a moment]. One would think scientists everywhere would be condemning the CRU, rather than becoming apologists and excuse-makers for them.
As National Review’s Iain Murray points out, not only was there a brazen conspiracy to remove contrarians from the peer-review process, but, “There was an organized attempt to circumvent or obstruct the legal requirements of the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000, which appears on its face to rise to the level of criminality.” These CRU “scientists” wrote of rather destroying the data before they allowed it to be available via information act lawsuits. (Speaking of, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is suing NASA to release its raw climate change data, on the basis that NASA has previously [in 2007] extrapolated inaccurate results which Washington bureaucrats and politicians would use to effect via regulation and taxation the lives of everyday Americans).
Ironically, I’m listening to National Public Radio on my radio in the background right now talk about the latest news from the Copenhagen climate talks, and, gosh, wouldn’t ya know it, they don’t mention a word about the CRU debacle! Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.
Which leads us to how the mainstream media has become a willing abettor to this climate scandal. Here’s Jonah Goldberg:
First, the climate-change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of “real” scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what’s really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.
Second, the climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations, and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global-warming “consensus.” The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn’t necessarily mean climate change isn’t happening, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.
How big a scandal this is for the scientific community is being hotly debated on the Internet. But in big newspapers and TV news, the story has gotten less attention. And that’s a scandal, too. The New York Times’s leading climate reporter, Andrew Revkin (whose name appears in some of the e-mails), won’t publish the contents of the e-mail on the grounds it would violate the scientists’ privacy. Can anyone imagine the Times being so prissy if such damning e-mails were from ExxonMobil, never mind Dick Cheney?
Exactly.
Today, the UK “Climate Change Secretary,” which is about as typical but useless as any government post could get, announced breathlessly that, “We have to beware of the climate saboteurs, the people who want to say this is somehow in doubt, and want to cast aspersions on the whole process.” By “process,” one supposes he means that very process that CRU personnel used, including lying, manipulation and obfuscation. You can’t make this stuff up! The academic elitists are shouting, “never mind that the data is fudged, just have faith we know what’s best for you.” Social engineering at its precipice.
Similarly, California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer was outraged — yes outraged! — over the CRU e-mails: not their content, mind you, but that they were allegedly hacked. “You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,” said the senator.
Suddenly the liberals have discovered that leaks of private or classified information is bad? Like Goldberg above said, had the e-mails been from a Merck server and revealed that the pharma giant was hiding something about Vioxx, do you think Sen. Boxer would be so outraged?(Meanwhile, there’s equal reason to believe that the e-mails weren’t hacked but leaked by a whistle blower — something liberals used to be in favor of, but only when pertaining to the CIA or Abu Ghraib apparently).
Same old, same old selective outrage from hypocrites on the left.