[youtube nEiLgbBGKVk]
Robert Tracinski of Real Clear Politics writes:
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in “legitimate peer-reviewed journals.” But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not “legitimate.”
You can also see from these e-mails the scientists’ panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, “It’s one thing to lose Climate Research. We can’t afford to lose GRL.” Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” That’s exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there.”
Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that “All of them know the sorts of things to say…without any prompting.”
So it’s no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN’s IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.
This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.
I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through…. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal…. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report….
Rob Port adds, Surprise! The state-run media on the other side of the pond is eager to hide the decline as well: “BBC Reporter Received Leaked Climategate Emails But Refused To Publish Them.”
Or as former Robin Aitken, former BBC journalist asked of his original employer two years ago, “Can We Trust The BBC?”
Meanwhile, Kate of Small Dead Animals writes, “I’d like to show you something at Macleans.ca:”
The generals
By Aaron Wherry – Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM – 2 Comments
Reports from the testimony of Rick Hillier and Michel Gauthier from the Canadian Press, Globe, Star, Sun, CTV, CBC and Inside Politics…Kandahar: we didn’t know what we were getting into
By John Geddes – Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM – 7 Comments
Gen. Rick Hillier, the retired chief of defence staff, just moments ago reminded the House committee …Norwich, we have a problem
By Colby Cosh – Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 3:28 PM –127 Comments
I can’t say I am spectacularly surprised at the emerging scandal over private e-mails obtained from the servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,…
Kate adds, in a comment that dovetails remarkably well with the mindset of elitist fear that drove Time’s new “Decade From Hell” cover story:
I’ve said it before – this week in boardrooms across the industry, media executives are meeting with media experts to hash out yet another strategy, and yet more innovations to address their falling fortunes, every last one of them invested in the unshakable belief that the internet is burying them because it’s faster .
As though the only difference between s*** and sunshine is the speed at which they travel.
Related – “I’ve heard about the cutbacks at the NYT and I guess it’s gotten so bad that they no longer allow internet access to reporters. So my news tip is that apparently, there’s some kind of development regarding the scientists behind the global warming data, involving emails or something like that…”
Also, highly recommended.
In his latest op-ed, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center explores those curious moments, such as the one we’re currently living in, “When the Press Favors Secrecy.”
That’s also the theme, regarding a very different topic from global “warming”, that Andrew Breitbart discusses as well, over at Big Government.
Update: Related thoughts on the aforementioned circular logic by Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard, who also has video of global “warming” religionist Ed Begley, Jr. melting down in response to having his faith challenged.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member