Some Climategate commentary.
Victor Davis Hanson on the fraud of it all:
While the president is sermonizing on global warming in connection with his Asian tour and the visit of India's head of state, we get the release of hacked emails from the British climate research center that seem to make a mockery of the entire climate-change debate — reducing it to the nasty level of academic infighting, fraud, and con games that we have become accustomed to in the postmodern Western university. At a time when the president is asserting the need for radical changes in our lives, the "science" that he once insisted would be the cornerstone of his new administration, appears shaky at best, and at worst a sort of 19th-century phrenology.Jonah Goldberg on the corruption of science and journalism:
Mark Steyn on the impossibility of hiding the decline:
But what seems incontrovertible at this point is that the global-warming industry (and it is an industry) is suffused to its core with groupthink and bad faith. For many of us, this is not shocking news. But it is shocking evidence. Proving bad faith and groupthink is very hard to do. But now we have the internal dialog of those afflicted made public (I hope some intrepid reporters are asking other climate institutions whether they are no erasing their files for fear of being similarly exposed). It is clear that the scientists at the CRU were more interested in punishing dissenters and constructing a p.r. campaign than they were in actual science.
This should be considered not merely a scientific scandal but an enormous journalistic scandal. The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) "consensus." Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There's no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the "consensus" they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. That's not how science is supposed to work. Skeptics who've received a tote bag from some oil company are branded as shills, but scientists who live off of climate-change-obsessed foundations or congressional fiefdoms are objective, call-it-like-they-see-it truth seekers. Question these folks and you get a Bill Murrayesque, "Back off, man. We're scientists."
Case in point: A Washington Post poll can't hide the decline in America's faith in global warmism but the reporter can omit any mention of the email scandal, and does.
Jonah, further to earlier discussions about the degree of scandalousness re Warmergate and the CRU, I think "Hide the decline" is a pretty hard phrase to "interpret" in any benign way, and a pretty easy way for anyone to get up to speed with what what's going on. It's already a song [watch the video], and a T-shirt.
On the other hand, the dullards at the dying US monodailies seem to be working overtime to hide the decline. In Fleet Street and on Australian TV, the statist warm-mongers are at least acknowledging that they have a problem. Over here the brain-dead twits doing their best to turn the Boston Globe circulation figures into Michael Mann's phony hockey stick upside down are going with "Boston Faces Deep Risk From Sea-Level Rise". Why not build protective dikes with unsold bundles of the Globe - or the delivery trucks?
In the comments section of both the Globe and The Houston Chronicle, readers seem to have a better nose for news than the J-school bores. Some declines can't be hidden.
What's worse is this editorial which minimizes the fraud and blacklisting and blames it on those provoking deniers:
By our reckoning -- and that of most scientists, policymakers and almost every government in the world -- the probability that the planet will warm in the long term because of human activity is extremely high, and the probability that allowing it to do so unabated will have disastrous effects is unacceptably large. The case that governments should hedge against that outcome is formidable enough. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.Back to the Boston Globe, the comments via Doug Ross on the paper's rising sea-level scare-article are indeed hilarious. Even northeastern liberals are having trouble swallowing this.
Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)
Most recent posts here.