Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Climate Email Hack: Blowing Over

It is always possible that more might emerge from the email hack, but as is, it seems that it is all over. I could cite lots of commentators on this, but they are probably part of the Lysenkoist-Marxist conspiracy to push climate change. So instead I'll cite the conservative Washington Times:

… it would be a mistake to believe that decades of scientific consensus that the planet is warming largely due to human activities will be erased or reversed by the disclosure of a few e-mails….

The world’s major political leaders … accept without reservation that global warming is a problem that must be addressed and are moving, though slowly, to do so. The saga of the purloined e-mails may be red meat to the anti-climate-change faithful, but it is nothing more than a sideshow in the grand scheme….

In summary, the stolen e-mails will not end the quest to reduce global warming….

And the varicoloured Lord Monkton (also see 1,2,3,4 & 5 for more on the noble Laird):

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really. ... But I won’t be holding my breath: In the police state that Britain has now sadly become, with supine news media largely owned and controlled by the government, the establishment tends to look after its own.

Normal service for conspiracy theories over climate change will now be resumed. Tinfoil hats at the ready...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Likely to be moderated out of http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fox-news-praises-jon-stewart-for-climategate-coverage/#comments

"How could Stewart have handled it? Well, take the “hide the decline” piece. How hard would it have been to follow the talking head with this graph"

Well you *see* those four "knuckles" at the right of your graph? They are indeed the real deal, as you say, except maybe just maybe we all might stop cutting the older values off and show the whole thing like the NOAA web site does: