It's almost funny the lengths the LameStream media is going to ignore the CRU emails.
The Oregonian lead editorial today talks of the upcoming Copenhagen climate confab, and how China and Obama are now ready to agree to CO2 limits. The piece goes on about how promising it is that the two largest "polluters" are finally talking about real limits.
But nowhere is there any mention whatsoever about any little controversy that might be brewing somewhere over some little emails. Not a word.
Question: If a major international scandal occurs that calls into question the basic integrity of the lead scientists on the biggest environmental and political issue of the century, and the Oregonian doesn't report it - did the scandal really happen?
Apparently the Oregonian doesn't think so. Don't report it, and it doesn't exist.
Except this scandal is growing legs. Long ones. And honest journalists, even those who for years have criticized AGW skeptics are now looking at this honestly.
Read this piece from Clive Crook in The Atlantic. Will we ever read anything this honest in the pages of the Oregonian? Doubtful.
Clive Crook is no right winger. He is very smart, and very talented. I have followed his writing for years in the Financial Times. He used to write for The Economist. He's a liberal. As he says - at the very least, these emails show that the leading scientists pushing the AGW hypothesis cannot be trusted.
So where does that leave them? Credibility destroyed. Their original data was deleted.
This is going to be fun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Here's a brief article that outlines the problem succinctly:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html
I remember a frequent visitor to this site admonishing us all to "do the regressions!"
Crap in...crap out. And now we know who spurious the previously given advice was and is.
It seems the data are essentially non-existant.
.
I have a sneaking suspicion the white house and media will continue to ignore as long as they can still take over a few more private sector arenas and adjust our lifestyles how they want.
This really bucks their plans and they're soooo close to having a strangle hold on the U.S.
The scientific controversy is unfortunate, but that is not the main aspect of the climate change religion. Even if the science is accurate, the changes predicted by the IPCC are actually modest and certainly even more modest, or most likely trivial, to our descendants who will be born in the technological and economic capabilities of the next century.
So it seems to me plain myopic and masochistic to try to find ways to punish ourselves for this hockey stick when future generations will enjoy the extrapolation of [this] and [this] and certainly other, unimaginable to us yet, hockey sticks of prosperity. Does anyone think that these last two graphs will level off in the future? And we are feeling sorry and guilty towards our descendants? It’s crazy! They will be looking at us from the future as myopic fools who were obsessing over easily mitigatable stuff (in the future) rather than enjoy our short and poor (by future standards) miserable lives.
Paging David Appell....
Geez, Ex-European!
I can see why you left Europe! There isn't any place there for a person who is such a "dynamist."
I am glad you are here!
Now, Rob, how about LetterGate?
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/12/the-latest-in-lettergate-tax-measures-negligible-impact-on-farms.html
Or don't you care that your allies are making stuff up? Perhaps they think that, like with your buddy Lars, there will be no consequences.
I expect the electorate will see things differently.
Sure, RR, inaccurate claims in a campaign mailer is precisely the same thing as government funded scientists whose work is the basis for far reaching and hugely expensive public policy destroying original temperature data, using statistical "tricks" to hide temperature declines, and the like.
Totally the same.
Post a Comment