The WaPost's Juliet Eilperin spends two dozen paragraphs telling us about the challenges facing those who would wish to enact measures to limit man's contribution to global climate change without a single reference to the scandal raging in the world of climate science as a result of the hacked East Anglia emails.
Update: A friend refers to this as akin to "your dog eating your homework".
Monday, November 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Well can you blame her? What "JOUR-nalist" either reads or even knows about Conservative blogs or could violate her solemn oath by watching Fox News? Finding any reference to the hacked emails in a MSM outlet has as much probability as finding Army in Navy's end zone this Saturday...just ain't gonna happen.
Environmental Greenism is th only PC religion around right now. And do not doubt that it is a religion. CW, did you catch this article yesterday?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Whitewash? How do you see that adding a mention of the theft of emails from East Anglia is relevant to this article on the upcoming climate change talks?
I'd be surprised, no astounded if it made any difference. The hidden agenda here is the transfer of wealth from developed to non-developed, and that goal remains intact. The global warming BS was just a means to get that done. If you're waiting for a reevaluation of the evidence in Copenhagen, you're dreaming.
The title of the WaPo piece is "Climate talks remain alive, but so do many obstacles".
I would consider evidence of falsified data as an "obstacle" and perhaps mention the current East Anglia e-mail issue.
But then again, I'm just a regular Joe, and not one of you oh-so-intellectually superior Cavaliers.
Because GHP, the "talks" are between "governments" who represent "people" who are increasingly questioning the "science" behind "policy" under consideration.
Eilperins article was about "challenges" facing the participants. I'd say the furor created by the "theft" of emails counts as a challenge.
Do a little Google of Eilperin and "conflict of interest". Read all about what is already out there in terms of a suspicion of policy bias. She's had to respond publicly to these charges--which makes this omission so much harder to comprehend--unless one defaults to nefarious motives.
Ghostress - I'm surprised. I almost included a snide remark in my comment above along the lines of "Finding any reference to the hacked emails, other than to report them as a right-wing theft of emails, in a MSM outlet...." but thought that even the MSM wouldn't go that far in (1) admitting awareness of the incident while (2) ignoring the evidence from it. You are smarter than that comment indicates. The principle argument against the doubters of global warming has always been to trust the science. Trust the science. Yet these emails indicate that the "scientists" had an agenda that superceded the professional obligation that real scientists are professionally committed to uphold. It's entirely relevant. Even crucially relevant. But it doesn't fit the political agenda. So dismissing the admitted lack of scientific data is considered scientific enough? C'mon.
Anon--just read it. Adds fuel to the fire, no?
Trust scientists? Not likely. Scientists through the ages have juggled the numbers to support their conclusions. That's why we have peer review and that's what the global warming advocates tried to subvert. Furthermore, there was a lot of money involved, somebody's ass should go to jail starting with that dickhead, Dr. Mann from Penn. State. They should revoke his academic credentials and present him with a Best Buy name tag.
Do you think that situation is an obstacle to the talks? I don't, I think there are far bigger fish to fry when it comes to looming obstacles.
I've read about this theft and the emails themselves in 2 articles and a blog in the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal, Telegraph, online on cnn.com and heard about it on WBUR. The NYT provides a link to the full text of the emails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/. So, it seems the MSM is very deviously hiding this issue in plain sight. I'm not saying it's not News, I think it is, but I don't see a whitewash, and I don't see that this episode has surfaced anything that would be an obstacle to climate talks.
Reading between the lines to try to see what you consider a danger, it seems that you are assuming a connection between the contents of the hacked personal emails and ... what ... a lack of confidence in the world's scientists in general, thereby making moot any discussion of our approach to the climate crisis? East Anglia is just one of several organizations working on primary data. Although you may be suggesting that this is a vast left wing conspiracy that has somehow managed to get Earth, wind, and fire to play along, and now everyone is going to dump their primary data in solidarity.
Point me to the emails that contain "evidence of falsified data" -- I've not seen those despite wandering through several articles on the subject.
If they were really confident regarding the "science" of global warming they would not have tried to conspire to supress data that would seem to undermine this "fact". Puts them in the same bin as a drug company that hides so called adverse events.
Post a Comment