Wednesday, November 25, 2009


The lamestream media, predictably, isn't reporting what's going on with Climategate. Those who get their news from the Perky Katie Couric or Newsweek or MSNBC haven't heard about this. Libertarian Republican has a good take on the media spin of this story.

We're on vacation this week, and we've been doing our own informal poll of waitresses, people at hotel front desks, and people who take our money at the "You-Gas 'Em" places. We're 0 for 10 on those people having heard about the hacked "Climagegate" emails.

Video from Minnesotans for Global Warming

We've also "sort of" talked to our liberal relatives while we've been on this trip. Although it's funny about them--those that lean 'way Left consistently run from political talk like their hair was on fire. In fact, they evidently talk among themselves ahead of time--"If those crazy right-wing bastards start talking politics, be sure you shut them down right away." They will talk about their latest trip to Germany or their new Prius--anything but politics. I think it's because, since they get all their "news" from Time magazine or the local fishwrap newspaper, they have nothing to say when we ask, "Have you heard about the hundreds of emails that prove all this climate change nonsense is a hoax?" Their answer is, "Nope, haven't heard about that, but have we told you about our latest cruise plans?"

Not to worry: they're only missing the greatest scandal in science since Gallileo was called up before the Inquisition and forced to recant his belief in the Copernicum system and live for the rest of his life under house arrest.

Here's what they could learn, if they wanted to, or if they knew what a "blog" was. Interesting that this comes from the UK press and not our own. According to the UK Telegraph, in an article titled "Climategate: The final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?, there's been, on the part of global warmism scientists (should we really still call them "scientists"?):
  • manipulation of evidence
  • private doubts about whether the earth is really heating up
  • suppression of evidence
  • fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists
  • attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
  • how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process
From PJTV: Three thing you absolutely must know about Climategate
  1. Scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.
  2. Scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.
  3. Scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
P.S. So I thought Obama had decided not to go to Copenhagen and the climate change conference. Obviously, I was wrong. Evidently he's going to spend one day in Copenhagen on his way to Oslo, Norway, where he'll accept his Nobel Peace Prize. Obama has a way of making a mess of everything he does, so in a way I'm glad he's going to Copenhagan.

Update: Rush Limbaugh and me: great minds think alike. On his website he says about Obama going to Copenhagan: "This is actually good news. Everywhere he goes he is an abysmal failure, whether it is to secure the Olympics for Chicago or whether it's to China. Who's he going to bow down to over there?"

This is from Reuters (again, no U.S. journalists are reporting this): Most nations have given up hopes of agreeing to a binding legal treaty text in Copenhagen, partly because of uncertainty about what the United States will be able to offer. Let me guess: the nations of the world hoped that Obama would lead them towards a global warming treaty in Copenhagen (or Hope-enhagen, as one wag puts it). United States to World: Obama couldn't lead you out of a hole in the ground. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Update #2: Reported by the Washington Times, Obama's Climate Czar, Carol Browner, says that for her, the hacked emails don't change anything. Oh my, how shocked I am to hear that /sarc. She says she considers the science of global warmism to be "settled." The Washington Times uses language in the article that includes calling the emails "a point of debate," and that they "appear" to show that scientists have "smoothed over" the data. The article concludes: Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn't have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is happening and is most likely being pushed by human actions.

Rather than "smoothed over," I think a better phrase is "fudged the numbers" or maybe "totally lied about." Browner's dismissive attitude about the thousands of leaked emails (or in her words, the emails that are "trickling" out) is just another example of a Leftist who doesn't give a damn about facts. Big surprise there! They also don't want to be put in a position of having an honest debate about an issue, because more times than not, the facts, as in the case of the global warmism hoax, are simply not on their side. So if you can't beat 'em with the facts, then just "smooth over" the data, since everyone knows that the science of global climate change is settled. Czar Browner simply asserts in her comments to reporters that those who don't believe in global warming are "very few in number." Well, then, that settles the issue for me! What a poltroon.

Update #3: Hat tip to Gateway Pundit: Protesters Chase Junk Scientist Al Gore Down the Street After Book Signing. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

P.P.S. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the lack of "passion" in any of Obama's public speeches of late? The perks may be great, but I think the guy really hates this job.


nobackindown said...

where in the heck are 'ya and who are the relatives?

did you know they're starting to refer to it as "Hope-enhagen?"

Labwriter said...

Well, I can't out them by name, now can I? Although I actually probably could name them here on the blog, since--I'm not kidding--they honestly don't know what a blog is. They almost do email. I'll give you a hint: they're in-laws, so they're not "ours."