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.