November 23, 2009

Honesty and Liberals

Chuck here, “the boss man” put me back to work. No sweat, friends, I really enjoy this. :-)

So, honesty and liberals.

Apples and oranges. Rocks and books. Pterodactyls and aardvarks. Paper clips and fish.

In today’s Best Of The Web Today, James Taranto writes about some emails industrious hackers wrenched from the hallowed files of your garden variety liberal academics whom, no doubt, would be the first to become outraged/ indignant/ majorly offended (take your pick) if accused of even considering anything like that which Mr. Taranto describes in Settled Science?

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E.
Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science–a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “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,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.” (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC’s conclusions.)

The press’s view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

Yes, honesty and liberals, rifles and feather dusters, automobiles and coral reefs, steel and rhubarb…

Trackback URL for this post:

4 Responses to “Honesty and Liberals”

  1. Tom Says:

    Honest Liberals? What an oxymoron!!

    And then there is consensus - the refuge of scoundrels - exactly the type of people exposed by the hacked emails.

  2. Chuck Says:


    Scary, ain’t it, to think about these liars controlling so much public opinion around the world, between the media and these “scientists” whose only science is agenda driven politics and the political “leaders” who are also part and parcel of that cabal?

  3. The Gray Monk Says:

    The truth always finds a way out - but the question is whether that other group of liars - the politicians now slavishly following the lies of the scientists whose gravy train has now been exposed, will come clean and stop the stupidity of their headline and media driven efforts to be “seen to be dealing with it.”

  4. Chuck Says:

    Gray Monk,

    The politicians would have to make it plain that they had been hoodwinked (”Hoodwinked, I say!”) by these scientists and their media bedfellows, expressing the proper degree of indignation, rather than admit, simply, to having been wrong, which they, being politicians, are not likely to do.

    Like they claimed they’d been “misled” about the presence of WMD in Iraq, after they’d voted to send troops there.

    They’d better get a fast grasp on perspective, though, because the Copenhagen “climate change” summit’s coming up next month.