New York Times writer fails logic test on climate change hoax documents
Bookworm on Nov 21 2009 at 2:32 pm | Filed under: Climate change, Media matters
I just had to laugh. The New York Times report on the hacked climate change documents starts off pretty honestly:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”
So, if I’m an intelligent reader, I’m thinking, “Scientists are using tricks to fudge data?! That must mean the actual data supporting the theory is absent or unreliable.”
“No, no,” the Times hastens to assure me:
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.
“But wait,” says the intelligent reader (assuming the Times has any), “didn’t you just tell me that massive numbers of documents have been produced showing that the data is flawed?”
So, we’re left with an article that admits that hundreds of email show fraud, but we’re not to worry, because the materially they’re trying to prove fraudulently is actually true.
If you’re thinking you’ve heard this before, you have. It happened with Rathergate, when Democratic operatives produced documents showing, for the first and only time, that George Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard. In an exceptionally good bit of investigative journalism, Charles Johnson showed that those documents were a complete fraud. Bye-bye any evidence of George Bush avoiding his National Guard duties.
Did the absence of evidence, coupled with the fact that someone had to stoop to create false evidence, stop the Left? Nooo. Instead, we were told that the documents were “fake, but accurate.” That’s how it works on the Left. If you have a theory, you stick to it, regardless of the absence of evidence. Evidence is icing, but you always have your theoretical cake.
On the Right, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. On the Left, you’re always right, regardless of what comes along. By the way, in psychiatric circles, I believe they call that delusional thinking. In political and media circles, they call it the sweet smell of success.
I should add here, that the New York Times article goes on to argue, in every way possible, that the emails showing a fraud were misinterpreted. The word “trick” for example, even though coupled with references to jiggering data, simply means “cleverness” not hoax. And, again, we’re assured that, even though these climate change guys were paranoid, vindictive, secretive, and periodically dishonest, we should definitely trust them. I prefer this theory, instead, but freely admit that I operate on the principle that, whatever Al Gore is for, I’m against it.
Related posts:
- Scientists know everything about the known world around us when it comes to climate change, but nothing when it comes to other things
- Climate change error story gaining traction
- Climate change hysteria may finally be peaking
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “New York Times writer fails logic test on climate change hoax documents”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, it is an economic blog after all, so it’s no wonder that the finanacial aspects interest him, and that it’s what he’d pick up on first:
From:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html
“So far, the most interesting file I found in the “documents” directory is pdj_grant_since1990.xls (Google preview, click) which shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.”
That’s entirely aside from the actual scientific stuff…
“discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released”…why would this even need discussion? The basic idea of science is that *you can always go and see for yourself*…if you don’t want to believe what Galileo is telling you about the motion of the heavenly bodies, get your own telescope and look for yourself. This is a major thing–maybe *the* major thing–that distinguished to scientific era from the time of the medieval scholastics, who tended to settle arguments by appeal to authority, usually Aristotle.
If there are really questions about whether–as a general matter–scientific data should be released (other than when military security, corporate proprietary information, etc are involved) then the “scientific” community is in serious trouble.
“I might not be right – but I am never wrong” approach and I thought that only whores turned ‘tricks’.
[...] Bookworm Room – New York Times writer fails logic test on climate change hoax documents [...]
Global Warming is a religion, not a science. It is no surprise that its adherents refuse to accept reality.
Even when we thought it was just a question of accepting facts, we could not convince the followers of the religion that they’d bought into a huge fraud. Now they must observe that the high priests of their religion – these so-called “scientists” – have been lying, deceiving, fudging and distorting the truth. But even that will not change anything. They will circle the wagons, crouch in a defensive posture, and bitterly cling to their falsified reports, claiming truth.
One can only hope that most Americans will become aware of the fraud and, being of common sense, abandon this global warming religious movement. Oh, how I hope there is enough wisdom left in most Americans to do so.
The Millerites were an apocalyptic U.S. religious cult in the 1840s who had been told that the end was going to come in 1844. The day of doom came and went, so the cult leader said his prediction had been loosey-goosey enough to allow for being a few months off. Eighteen forty-six! he declared, and his followers bit.
When that didn’t work, they didn’t turn against their leader, they just settled in to being good Millerites who were sure the day of reckoning would come soon enough even if they couldn’t quite pinpoint the date.
The Millerites today are called Seventh Day Adventists, very decent folks who have developed some terrific vegetarian recipes and run some great medical hospitals. Would that our looney global warming religionists would have the sense—and decency—to do as the Adventists did. But I’m not holding my breath.
James Delingpole has a roundup of how the MSM is reporting this at his Telegraph blog.
Mike & Charles
Thought this would be a good read for the two of you. Not that either of you need confirmation – Briggs’ voice echoes your own.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1355
CM: Oh, is that where the 7th Day Adventists come from? Never knew that.
Although, they’re right. The end of the world is near. Of course, near in G-d’s time is quite possibly some centuries…