What’s Everyone Saying About Climate Research Unit “Hacked” Information
by Tom Remington | November 24, 2009
*Scroll for Updates*
You can hear the molecules of cyberspace crackling this morning as everyone jumps on board to talk about what is being perhaps wrongfully described as “hacked” emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit located at the University of East Anglia.
Here’s a list of links and a summary of what some are saying, from both sides of the debate.
Impact Lab says few U.S. politicians are even questioning if humans are causing climate change.
Michelle Malkin refers to this as the “Global Warming Scandal of the Century“.
Ed Driscoll, Pajamas Media, says the New York Times won’t even bother to publish any of the information. No surprise there. Doesn’t fit their narrative.
While intelligent people, those seeking the truth, are trying to expose whether or not truth has been buried and hidden from the public, reaching perhaps conspiracy levels, the Associated Press tells us that global warming is worse than it’s ever been.
And if you’re dumb enough to think the alarmist who want not only your money but your life, are somehow going to pay any attention to any of the deception that has been going on fudging data and lying about climate facts, take a look at this perverted video put out by some pretty sick individuals. And they think AGW deniers are whacked out.
Science doesn’t matter in the climate change debate anyway.
Of course Climate Depot is just buzzing this morning:
Tom Nelson is telling us that it appears not all the documents that got “hacked” have been released. There are more on the way. Reports of one U.S. scientist claiming only emails that might support “deniers” have been released, citing an “inside job”.
Stunning Deception and Misconduct!
Scientific Mass Manipulation in Progress.
The Inquisitr says that efforts so far by the Mainstream Media to “spin” the story, “epically fails”.
Examiner.com has one of the poorest rebuttals to the “hack” job of any I’ve read. Here’s a few excerpts:
Climate change skeptics are using hacked emails as propaganda in their campaign to suppress and deny knowledge of anthropogenic climate change …………………………………………………………
The utilization of hacked emails is just the latest ploy of right wing nuts and other outliers who refuse the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change………………………………………………….
Climate change deniers are at this very moment pouring through the data, pulling quotes and numbers out of context and cherry picking facts and statements in order to make their case against climate change, a case that stands not on science, but on propaganda and denial………………………………………
Most U.S. politicians, most citizens, do not question whether humans are changing the world’s climate. It is simply accepted as a truth, a truth that is at once both intuitive and unavoidable given the activity of humanity in the last 500 years.
Amen and Hallelujah, Brothers!!!
Keith Johnson of the Wall Street Journal says this is indicative of “bitter feelings” among scientists.
From the UK, Lord Lawson demands a full investigation. He says, “that the credibility of the university’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit – and British science – were under threat.”
The ends justify the means? Is it okay to ignore lying cheating and stealing so long as we do SOMETHING about climate change? Oh, my god!
Prison Planet says that “the foundation for man-made global warming implodes”.
Stolen data claims are ‘ludicrous’, according to the Press Association.
But other than that, things are pretty quiet.
Update one! Nov. 23, 2009, 5:34 p.m.
The Wall Street Journal wants to know what’s to hide. It seems that efforts have been ongoing for some time to retrieve information used by the scientists at CRU but have denied. What’s to hide? Isn’t science supposed to be “peer reviewed” and available to public scrutiny? What’s to hide? Is there something to hide so much so that those whom the email points a finger, gave orders to begin deleting emails and information. What’s to hide?
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is calling for a hearing to determine whether “the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.’” This according to The Hill.
The Atlantic wants to know “What is the Malkin Clique So Excited About”. Isn’t it ironic? Here’s what Andrew Sullivan says in regards to his notion that the emails only show the scientists trying to make a prettier picture of their findings, while demonizing bloggers searching for some answers.
The key to these bloggers’ mentality is simply to find some tiny thing and focus all attention on that in order to persuade people that the bigger reality is untrue or irrelevant. This is not an argument; it’s a technique. It’s a technique to persuade people not to examine all the evidence, since the source of the evidence – secular humanist scientists – are evil suspects and against God and in favor of making your gas bill higher.
So, if the “Malkin Clique”’s “technique is to persuade people not to examine all the evidence, then why is it okay for the Jones Clique to seemingly hide all the evidence? Isn’t the “Malkin Clique” asking to see all that evidence? What a childish comment to make. If the science is so settled and the Jones Clique has all the evidence to prove it, then why are they insistent on destroying that evidence before they would be willing to open it up to peer review and public scrutiny? This makes little sense and such questions are fair and deserve answers. Evidently the Jones Clique prefers to take the investigative route and let others draw their own conclusions. As one of them evil bloggers noted yesterday, if the science is settled and the CRU has all the evidence to support it, then why don’t they have readily available answers to the questions being asked?
*Update Two* Nov. 23, 2009 7:15 p.m.
Pajamas Media is reporting that Christopher Monckton, the Brit who challenged Al Gore to a debate on global warming, is calling those who have fudged data at CRU, “criminals”.
Comments
Got something to say?