ClimateGate links

November 27, 2009

It may be a holiday here in the US, but the news and revelations about the scandal that may sink the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming didn’t take the weekend off. Here are some of the more interesting links to cross the Public Secrets case desk:

There’s never just one:

The biggest item, and the one that has to have cultists and alarmists worldwide burning candles to Al Gore, is news that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit may not be the only site to have manipulated data to fit a preferred result. New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been accused of manipulating data to show a warming trend where none existed. Lawrence Solomon of Canada’s Financial Post reveals a connection from NIWA back to the corruption-tainted CRU, while James Delingpole comments on the deepening shame.

It seems the arrogant priests of the AGW cult have at last met their Nemesis.

The Silence of the Lambs American Media:

You would think that a scandal of this potential magnitude would be on all the networks and in all the major papers of the United States.

You would be wrong. They are doing their level-best to ignore or downplay this crisis in AGW orthodoxy. In fact, the Russians are covering this more honestly than the American press:

Hang your heads in shame, MSM. The Russian press has more integrity than you.

Update: The New York Times refuses to publish the leaked emails, citing ethical concerns, yet it had no problem releasing national secrets in wartime. Ethics. Yeah. Sure.  Waiting

Other Links:

Senior members of the opposition Liberal Party in Australia have resigned in protest of the Party leader’s support for a cap-and-trade scheme. Though no direct link to ClimateGate was drawn, it’s a reasonable inference thanks to the timing.

Perhaps this is a good time to reread the late Michael Crighton’s speech about environmentalism as a religion.

Oh, my. The revered BBC had the CRU’s files a month ago and didn’t say a thing. Media bias at the Beeb? Say it ain’t so!

An excellent summary of the significance of the CRU email and program files. I disagree with the author’s conclusion after item four (I think this sets AGW theory back to square zero), but the summation itself is good.

I have to ask: without utter and complete transparency on the part of advocates of man-caused climate change, how can anyone trust their claims in the future? They have to release all raw data and make available the raw code of their programs. If they’re right, why hide anything? Nothing else will do.

Their credibility is in ruins.

Advertisements