On Friday the New York Times’ house global warming author Andy Revkin, reporting on the breaking (Revkin would prefer it be braking) global Climategate scandal, said repercussions “continue to unfold” and that “there’s much more to explore, of course.”
So what has Sherlock Andy, Warmth Detector focused on since then? Yesterday he noted a study on Antarctic ice loss that comes with “substantial uncertainty” and a “CO2toon,” and then he elevated from Reader Comments at his original post the views of University of Chicago climatologist Raymond Pierrehumbert, who bemoaned the CRU “cyber-attack.”
After all, this is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth. Think — this was a very concerted and sophisticated hacker attack.
There is still no proof that this was a hacker attack (CRU certainly never stated that was the case) — it could have been an insider. And just because I’m prone to add insult to injury, I’d like to see the evidence that the alarmist RealClimate Web site was hacked as well, which Revkin reports as fact. Just askin’.
Meanwhile, it’s comforting to know that the Amazing Revkin is getting after all the “more to explore.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?