Global Whitewash
This is Steven Petrick posting.
This last Sunday there was (finally) an article about Climategate in the paper. The article explained how the Associated Press (AP) had studied the stolen Climate Research Unit E-mails and determined that there was no story there.
No story here. Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
As part of the above, and for those who had not gotten much about Climategate but perhaps a few rumors from cranky old guys (like me), the AP article included a few choice quotes to prove that their extensive analysis showed that there was simply nothing there.
They noted that one quote was simply a researcher taking regrettable relief that a noted anti-Man-Caused-Global-Warming activist had died. And that while it might have been in poor taste to imply a certain amount of celebration over the activist's death having silenced him, that was all it was. Obviously we can all agree that he was just being human.
I will observe that I do not recall anyone making any noise about the above quote. After all, how many of us in the Western World, particularly the United States, would be upset on hearing that Osama bin-Laden had died (other than a feeling he had escaped justice for his deeds)?
They noted that a paper that the E-mails suggested should be blocked from publication was "subsequently discredited BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PARTLY PAID FOR BY OIL COMPANIES".
Should all the papers which promote the concept that man caused global warming that are partly, or in whole, supported by the pro-"man has caused global warming" lobby as a means of getting us to force our governments to force us to be "green" be blocked? Certainly Al Gore has nothing to gain if we go green, right? Why is it okay to block a paper that might (MIGHT) be tainted by the oil money rather than allowing it to go through the peer-review process? Why are the pro-"man caused global warming" people so terrified that the exposing the peer review process to papers they themselves have not approved would not result in the peers seeing through the oil company shenanigans and rejecting the paper on its own merits? Why is the media not interested in the literally hysterical efforts by the Pro-"man caused global warming" zealots to not even allow contradictory papers to be peer reviewed?
There were other quotes (I believe at least two others) that were in a similar vein. That is to say that they studiously avoided going anywhere near the quotes that cause the most furor.
Where was the AP report on the E-Mail with "hide the decline"? Somehow, while simple folks like me are very interested in just what was meant by that statement, the AP has summarily dismissed it as unimportant. This was a quote that even the members of the CRU were desperate not to acknowledge, pointing at the word "trick" earlier in that sentence in an effort (obviously successful in the case of the AP's diligent analysis of the E-mails) to divert us away from that text. Not explained to this day do my knowledge.
The AP story also makes a flat statement that "nothing criminal occurred" (paraphrase), and makes this by ignoring the statements in the E-mails about violating England's "Freedom of Information laws", i.e., not reporting on them in the story. In short, not addressing that aspect at all short of issuing its own blanket amnesty even before the British government has concluded its own investigation.
The AP reporters have also determined that "there is no proof any information was destroyed". Sure, there is no "proof", only E-mails that seemed to include admissions that information was destroyed, and definitely and quite specifically invited other "scientists" to join in destroying information in order to prevent it being accessed under England's Freedom of Information laws.
Those particular E-mails were apparently overlooked by the five AP reporters who rigorously examined the files. They must have been merely overlooked, as otherwise surely the story would have quoted them and explained why those particular E-mails did not mean what they clearly mean in plain and simple English.
At least English as understood by anyone who does not have an agenda to prove Man Caused Global Warming.
So, as I noted in my last post, there is a reason why news media rank just above politicians, and this story supports that reason.
This last Sunday there was (finally) an article about Climategate in the paper. The article explained how the Associated Press (AP) had studied the stolen Climate Research Unit E-mails and determined that there was no story there.
No story here. Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
As part of the above, and for those who had not gotten much about Climategate but perhaps a few rumors from cranky old guys (like me), the AP article included a few choice quotes to prove that their extensive analysis showed that there was simply nothing there.
They noted that one quote was simply a researcher taking regrettable relief that a noted anti-Man-Caused-Global-Warming activist had died. And that while it might have been in poor taste to imply a certain amount of celebration over the activist's death having silenced him, that was all it was. Obviously we can all agree that he was just being human.
I will observe that I do not recall anyone making any noise about the above quote. After all, how many of us in the Western World, particularly the United States, would be upset on hearing that Osama bin-Laden had died (other than a feeling he had escaped justice for his deeds)?
They noted that a paper that the E-mails suggested should be blocked from publication was "subsequently discredited BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN PARTLY PAID FOR BY OIL COMPANIES".
Should all the papers which promote the concept that man caused global warming that are partly, or in whole, supported by the pro-"man has caused global warming" lobby as a means of getting us to force our governments to force us to be "green" be blocked? Certainly Al Gore has nothing to gain if we go green, right? Why is it okay to block a paper that might (MIGHT) be tainted by the oil money rather than allowing it to go through the peer-review process? Why are the pro-"man caused global warming" people so terrified that the exposing the peer review process to papers they themselves have not approved would not result in the peers seeing through the oil company shenanigans and rejecting the paper on its own merits? Why is the media not interested in the literally hysterical efforts by the Pro-"man caused global warming" zealots to not even allow contradictory papers to be peer reviewed?
There were other quotes (I believe at least two others) that were in a similar vein. That is to say that they studiously avoided going anywhere near the quotes that cause the most furor.
Where was the AP report on the E-Mail with "hide the decline"? Somehow, while simple folks like me are very interested in just what was meant by that statement, the AP has summarily dismissed it as unimportant. This was a quote that even the members of the CRU were desperate not to acknowledge, pointing at the word "trick" earlier in that sentence in an effort (obviously successful in the case of the AP's diligent analysis of the E-mails) to divert us away from that text. Not explained to this day do my knowledge.
The AP story also makes a flat statement that "nothing criminal occurred" (paraphrase), and makes this by ignoring the statements in the E-mails about violating England's "Freedom of Information laws", i.e., not reporting on them in the story. In short, not addressing that aspect at all short of issuing its own blanket amnesty even before the British government has concluded its own investigation.
The AP reporters have also determined that "there is no proof any information was destroyed". Sure, there is no "proof", only E-mails that seemed to include admissions that information was destroyed, and definitely and quite specifically invited other "scientists" to join in destroying information in order to prevent it being accessed under England's Freedom of Information laws.
Those particular E-mails were apparently overlooked by the five AP reporters who rigorously examined the files. They must have been merely overlooked, as otherwise surely the story would have quoted them and explained why those particular E-mails did not mean what they clearly mean in plain and simple English.
At least English as understood by anyone who does not have an agenda to prove Man Caused Global Warming.
So, as I noted in my last post, there is a reason why news media rank just above politicians, and this story supports that reason.
posted by Federation Commander at 2:29 AM
<< Home