By Paul Chesser on 11.21.09 @ 8:44AM
That’s The Amazing Revkin for you — the New York Times’ DotEarth blogger/environmental reporter attempts some M*A*S*H-style meatball surgery this morning on the badly hemorrhaging climate alarmoscientists’ scandal that has erupted in East Anglia, UK. First he acknowledges that some of the most prominent climate fictionalizers in the world said some very naughty things about global warming skeptics, but then he promptly cues the violins:
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
And then Revkin asserts that it’s all pretty meaningless in the overall scheme:
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.
Revkin has authored two global warming books and so has a lot to lose himself from this controversy, as his reputation is just as much at stake as the scientists.’ Therefore his defense mechanisms are fully engaged. In his blog post yesterday about the revelations, he states that repercussions “continue to unfold” and “there’s much more to explore,” but do you really think he can be counted on for follow-up stories about it this week? We’ll see, but this attitude doesn’t give much hope:
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics’ Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.
And what a surprise: He offers no links to those skeptics’ sites. Meanwhile, blogger Tom Nelson notes Revkin’s past freedom-of-information heroics when it came to scrutinizing the Bush administration. So while Revkin and alarmists engage in crybabyism, the climate realists among us train our eyes on the substantive. For example, Czech physicist Lubos Motl identified a few juicy morsels from the emails, including one in which the University of East Anglia CRU’s Phil Jones writes to U.S. atmospheric scientist (and realist) John Christy:
…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. Cheers, Phil
Indeed, selfishness appears to be at the heart of much of the alarmism movement. Motl discovers money transfer methods and tax evasion schemes, as well as Jones’s well-funded endeavors over the years:
So far, the most interesting file I found…shows that since 1990, Phil Jones has collected staggering 13.7 million British pounds ($22.6 million) in grants.
There is oh-so-much. Like I said yesterday, it’s like watching the ACORN-sting videos over and over again because you just can’t believe what you’re seeing.
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.
Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.