|
| The industrious reader will read today's "In passing" link to the New York Times continued scandalous manipuilation of the exposed climate fraud. Meanwhile - Greg Pierce, citing David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen:
|
| “
|
"More generally, we have been given the materials with which to obtain
an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of
public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated
with various 'progressive' causes require a particular scientific
result.
"There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a
true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian
[Tuesday] with: 'It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The
e-mails extracted ... could scarcely be more damaging. I am now
convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by
them.' ...
"It is amusing to see mainstream media sources such as the New York
Times, which thinks nothing of publishing purloined government
documents that will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers in the field
and compromise vital intelligence operations, suddenly become all jowly
and uptight about publishing the e-mails in question because they were
'illegally obtained.'
"Other media - which have played a leading part for years in giving
credibility to 'global warming' claims - are now maintaining the
silence of Iago on the revelations. We will see how long this can be
sustained."
|
” |
|
And when is someone going to ask WHY?
ReplyDeleteMy theories.
1) "The end justifies the means". Many of these so called scientists belong to the enviroMENTAList movement and/or hate Capitalism. In their view faking the results is justified as long as the desired results are achieved.
2) "Results for profit". Many of these people survive on gummint research grants. No problem means no money means working at a fast food restaurant ("want fries with that?").
3) "True believers". See Ed Begley Jr..
Gotta love Steyn, who is going to town on this. Snippets: "Global frauding", "leading warm-mongers", "widespread data-raping", and earlier "tree-ring circus".
ReplyDeleteTuring word: winycot
Have you ever noticed that science makes astounding progress on questions that nobody gives a crap about? But when it comes to questions of vital interest, like a cure for baldness, forget it.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is why. Nobody bothers to cheat on the 9th decimal place of the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, because who really gives a flip. So we know that the 9th decimal is 4. But we don't know the first decimal of the warming/cooling of the earth.
Nothing will ever change their minds....even when the northern half of the US is again covered under 10,000 feet of ice they will still believe:
ReplyDelete"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"
When do we get the, you know, formula? Einstein had e=MC2. Newton had f=(gmm)/r (40 year ago memory)
ReplyDeleteWhat do Mann et al have? Where's the formula that says for every Gt of CO2 injected into the atmosphere, the global temperature will rise .00000001 F ?? Huh guys? Where's your calculations? What is the standard deviation? What is even the BASIC calculation, never mind albedo, humidity, clouds [cover and generation]. You ain't got squat.
Show us the formula or STFU.
I sent in a comment to the EPA about their rulings on CAFE [to increase 4 years earlier] at a cost of $1000's per vehicle with a .00000015 F effect.[fake number..]
" measure with a micrometer
mark with a pencil
cut with an ax"
They won't get it, but I told them their proposal was a ridiculous waste of money.
The comments close today. www.rulings.gov somewhere.
tomw
turing: fertuti - you said it, they are fruteetuti