Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Environment

I'll Have What He's Drinking

I don't know what has got into Walter Russell Mead, but whatever he's having I want it.  Today he delivers another thunderous beatdown of the climate campaign.  Sample:

Not since the incident at Chappaquiddick derailed the Ted Kennedy for President boomlet of 1969 has a political movement imploded so fast and so messily as the green crusade to stop global warming. . .  The greens, it is increasingly clear, bet the ranch on the Copenhagen process.  That horrible meltdown, perhaps the biggest and most chaotic public embarrassment in the history of multilateral summits, turned climate change from global poster boy to global pariah.

Add to this Newsweek's story out yesterday that "Green Is Not Longer a Surefire Political Winner," and the Washington Post article yesterday that "Historic Oil Spill Fails to Produce Gains for U.S. Environmentalists," and it looks like my long-predicted rout of the greens is on, big time.

By the way, where is Al Gore?  My AEI colleague Ken Green yesterday suggested: "He must have reached his Tipper point."
Categories > Environment

Discussions - 33 Comments

Where is Al Gore? Most likely enjoying one of the five houses that he owns that use more energy than the city of Los Angeles. I would bet he spends most of his time in the house that has the beach front view in Southern California, where Al would never let anyone build those green, but ugly wind turbines.

There is also a thunderous anger directed at Miami and New York and Chicago and the media, Obama or everyone who contributed to Lebron leaving Cleveland.(in the sort of house that Jack built, interstate commerce proximate cause gone made sense) Speaking of oversize contracts and spending for the sake of winning championships, the guy in the sports world who personifies this George Steinbrenner died today.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the red state/blue state politics divide comes from big urban market vs. small TV market type fights. You also have a divergence between where we are headed economically between big(good earnings, decent outlook but still hoarding cash) and small business confidence(the sky is falling, hoard cash).

Again you have talk of double dip, and you have your bulls and bears. The green demise in Newsweek is talking about Europe and Australia in the US green was never a surefire political winner. So green is not really overhypped in the US, but folks realize that it hurts jobs, and folks in LA and the gulf who are upset with BP nevertheless don't oppose offshore drilling, and probably don't like the fact that after courts overturn moratorium's the federal government puts them back on.

I do think you are seeing some environmental gains in the US culturally. I think folks do want to buy hybrids and some commited folks will buy electric, and when the technology starts to improve from the massive spending(and losses subsidized in part by the market and Tesla, and in part by Energy department subsidies with the Volt and the Leaf.) This will gradually become a better value.

Again you just have the "hype" and "bubble" expectations hitting reality. We aren't going to get off fossil fuels or coal anytime soon, but we will start developing a lot of more alternative energy options.

In some sense when the economy tanks we consume less energy and fuel prices fall so the demand for these new green technologies decline. At the same time when you have other problems in europe and elsewhere environmental concerns go to the backburner.

But like everything else you get excited about you have to justify those expectations be they pessimistic or optimistic with a firm grounding in reality.

The economy really has to heat up and energy prices have to increase before environmentalism can take off.

I think there is room for optimism in offshore oil and offshore windmills, for salter sink to moderate hurricanes, for the potential geo-engineering answer of pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere if required when or if the worse predictions of the models begins to materialize. I think there is energy in cleaner coal, energy in LNG, there is optimism in modifications to be made on vehicles to increase fuel efficiency. There is momentum on taking a que from the french and finding a way to reprocess nuclear waste to really make Nuclear a better deal.

While Detroit and the whole state of Michigan continues to take a beating, this is an incredibly greener state with so many more trees regrown. It is more scenic and the great lakes are a lot cleaner than they used to be. I really think Michigan is a better deal than it used to be, Detroit doesn't even have to come back for this to happen, but at 50k for median home prices I think you can be bullish here in the midst of doom and gloom.

Michigan as a whole is a lot greener and lush with more clean water/beaches hunting and fishing among the opportunities to enjoy the environment recreationally than the unforgiving desert of Las Vegas. So if the environmental value is at a low point, when environmental concerns come back sensible folks are more likely to recognize the value of Michigan.

Not only are big houses and McMansions of the type owned by Al Gore out of style there is a sense that those types of homes in Las Vegas are not really in accord with Nature. When you see that Al Gore is getting flack for his incoherence you have to see this as also positive for environmentalism and conservation.

Whether it's politically fruitful or not for candidates and enviro groups, the actual scientists dealing with the matter - having been exonerated and validated - keep plugging away, and they're finding global warming to be quite real.

At least you could do an honest follow-up about all that "climategate" nonsense that was hyped up here at NLT so much:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_hacked_e_mails

But then, if the "liberally-biased" media's not highlighting it with the same fervor they did the initial hype (or at all), then I suppose I shouldn't expect it here, either.

mediamatters DOT org/research/201007010052

Just crank up the AC - everything's just fine:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575350604258476606.html

I think VP Gore is done with public life. He's got fame and a huge mansion overlooking the Pacific and now no one is listening too his message anymore. Why bother?

You mean Al Whore?

having been exonerated and validated - keep plugging away, and they're finding global warming to be quite real.

Trashing the raw data, corrupting the peer review process.... nothing to see here.

AD - Did you even skim those articles?

"...there was no evidence Jones had destroyed evidence that he knew critics were seeking, or that he or others perverted the peer review process."

How many petro-funded researchers have participated in the peer review process? I'm also betting the "skeptics" are always ready to dismiss that process as being led by a cabal of liberal enviro-whackos. Only what the conservative and conservative-libertarian think tanks can do this science right - by studying the problem as Friedman and Hayek would??

This is just like the tobacco-is-harmless "research" that we got years ago.

See here:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/07/08/merchants-of-doubt/#more-17244

Craig, the raw data was disposed of and only the massaged data remains.

Among the critics of the thesis on global warming is Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT and the National Academy of Sciences) and Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center). Dr. Lindzen is one of the two dozen or so most eminent meterologists in this country.

"Craig, the raw data was disposed of and only the massaged data remains."

Again, you must have missed the part above that said "no evidence." This must be a HUGE conspiracy, considering the large number of pertinent scientists (i.e., the majority) on board with anthropogenic global warming. And now there's a conspiracy to exonerate the original scientific conspirators, too!

Reading about your guy Lindzen, I was amused by this quote about him on Wiki: "Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette."

If you (and Hayward and others) are so desperate for there to be some sort of Climategate, where was your impartial skepticism in '05 when Philip Cooney - a lawyer & lobbyist for the petro industry (bachelor's degree in econ.) who somehow became chief of staff of the White House Council on Enviro. Quality - was busted tampering with scientific reports on climate change. (An oil lobbyist even faxed Cooney before he got caught, saying, "You are doing a great job.") He quit to go work for... Exxon!! In '07 Cooney admitted, regarding the incident(s), "My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration."

There's what a real Climategate looks like.

Time for you guys to manufacture and promote another faux-scandal, have the Liberal, Lamestream Media help you and FoxNews to make it seem like the biggest deal ever "in the history of man." (Bozell).

Here's the NYTimes quiet "corrective" on the matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html?_r=2

(Note their note: "A version of this editorial appeared in print on July 11, 2010, on page WK7 of the New York edition." - haha)

When we have a truly independent panel judge the "climategate" incident, then I may believe you, Craig. How many billions of grant dollars are on the line, BTW?

Yes, Redwald, "truly independent" as in, if it comes to the conclusion that the scientists were conspiring to deceive, their data was wrong/misleading/destroyed, and that global warming is a hoax.

Maybe we need an Exxon-funded independent panel to get down to the bottom of things, eh?

Everybody, esp. Scanlon, should check out Clive Crook's brief take on the "exonerations." (Though I trust Scanlon will find a way to allege that Crook must be in Big Oil's pocket, too):

http://blogs.ft.com/crookblog/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/

No, not everyone who plays the climate skeptics/denialism/minimizing shell game is in Big Oil's pocket. Crook is probably just trying to save face after having so often made such a gleeful stink about "climategate" before all the relevant facts came to light.

The exoneration I'd really like to see from an independent panel (and no, the Wall Street Journal's editors don't really count) is the one that shows that the American Enterprise Institute, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow haven't received thick slices of cash for years from the oil industry (Exxon and Koch, for starters), and if they have, that such funding has not influenced the direction and/or outcomes of the groups' research and analyses (any of it peer-reviewed?), and positions on various environmental issues (such as global warming). Or that such funding had absolutely no bearing - in the case of AEI - in their decision to offer $10,000 to scientists for research which could appear to support climate skeptics.

I think what Mead is drinking (and Cook too, albeit in smaller doses) is Kool-Aid.

Is that really the best you've got? No wonder. . .

This idea of "Petro Funded" researchers is off base in my opinion because look at who supports and who does not the Cap and Trade legislation. Shell supports BP does not. It is hardly as though the big oil companies don't have plans that will possibly give them even more power and profits when some sort of extreme action is taken on the concept of climate change. Exon Mobil is not on the list but I think the Rockefellers have been pushing cap and trade since day one. I think a lot of the people in the environmental movement mean well and they really care, but I am afraid that their passion and energy is simply being used to advance more authoritarian controls on the citizens of the West.
Science has been built back up since it was embarassed by the eugenics of the last century, but now it is being used to force a philosphical agenda. I have little doubt that both sides are fudging their research because its not about the simple finding of truth its about having findings that can be used to serve some sort of a purpose. The real devil in all of this is from research to legislation. Are we really to believe that CO2 is a deadly toxic chemical that must be banned considering it is what plants breath and animals exhale. Out of all the things they could have picked they pick Carbon. It just strikes me as a convinient way to intervine in the lives of individuals, because carbon is the most common rather than actually talking about the really deadly stuff that comes from petro chemical products but are not around in every day life for the average person.

Support the Bill:
Utility Workers Union of America

Sierra Club

Union of Concerned Scientists

Oxfam America

American Rivers

Johnson & Johnson

General Electric

League of Conservation Voters

World Resources Institute

Ford Motor Company

Nature Conservancy

NRG Energy

Public Service Enterprise Group

Nike

Exelon Corporation

Environment America

Clean Water Action

Duke Energy Corporation

National Grid

Alcoa
Laborers' International Union of North America

United Steelworkers
Levi Strauss & Co.

Service Employees International Union

PepsiCo

eBay, Inc.

Avista Corporation

PNM Resources

National Audubon Society

The American Civil Rights Union

Symantec Corporation

Dow Chemical Company

DuPont

Environmental Defense Fund

Communications Workers of America

Boston Scientific Corporation

One Sky

VoteVets.org

Pew Environment Group

alliance for climate protection

climate solutions

Applied Materials

Aspen Snowmass

austin energy

Clif Bar and Company

FPL Group

Kleiner Perkins et al

Seventh Generation

starbucks corporation

AES Corporation

alstom

Deere & Company

Rio Tinto

Siemens Corporation

Hewlett Packard

General Motors

Shell

Natural Resources Defense Council

PG&E Corporation

Chrysler

Oppose the bill:
Public Citizen

American Petroleum Institute

Americans for Tax Reform

National Taxpayers Union

American Conservative Union

National Mining Association

Friends of the Earth

Greenpeace

Alliance for Worker Freedom

National Pork Producers Council

Ethan Allen Institute

Caterpillar Inc

American Farm Bureau

American Shareholders Association

Rainforest Action Network

international rivers

Murray Energy Corporation

ConocoPhillips

College Republican National Committee

BP Global

"I'll have what he's drinking"...

"Is that really the best you've got?"...

Sorry to break it to you, but this isn't some bad western or a Chuck Norris movie, it's a blog.

Anyway, as soon as AEI (and the others) submit those e-mails (in the name of transparency!) to the independent panel, we can begin the review. Wouldn't exoneration be a relief?

Craig, what do the AEI and it's supporters have to do with Climategate?

Andrew - read through the thread; it should be clear enough. Short version - oil industry dollars determine the outcomes of AEI (and co.) research, and essentially dictate which stories are hyped, and which are downplayed...

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912080001

Regardless of how the insatiable consumption of oil might negatively effect the world we (and any kids we have) live in, the oil industry doesn't see "curbs on fossil fuel" as good for their bottom line. So they want some "research" from those who say that (pick one) global warming isn't real, global warming is no big deal, or there's nothing we could possibly do to stop or slow down the warming process, so (the new GOP mantra) Why Bother Trying?

I love the extreme double-standards of the Left. If money's on the line, then you can't believe anything the Right says. But if money's on the line for Leftist interests, well, no problem, move along, nothing to see here.

I would wager that the ratio of Left-to-Right dollars funding environmental research is on the order of 1 million to 1, and I'd even throw in lobbying money to help the denominator. Global warming/climate change is a HUGE business, and the universities have cashed out accordingly. We've seen this before in the population scares of the 1960s and 70s -- it drove millions of dollars in grants, but it was nothing but smoke and mirrors. This will turn out the same (although the aftermath will be lousy-rich academic institutions and economically-crippling legislation).

So, using the typical logic of the Left, since so much money is on the line, you can't trust the interests involved - period.

From what I've read on the Climategate matter (the majority of it from Der Spiegel and the London Times), the key issue is that the raw data collected from the temperature/climate monitoring devises is no longer availible. The raw data was dumped after being plugged into formulae (which have since been forgotten). Regardless of how much you spin it either way, we don't have the raw data, which many contest did not point to the same results as the currently availible manipulated data.

I understand your point questioning the AEI's studies showing there is no threat and that we don't need to cut back on fossile fuel consumption, but that is a seperate issue.

IPCC: "A" will happen to the climate according to study "X".
AEI: "A" will not happen to the climate according to study "Y".

Climategate is about the validity of X, you're contesting the validity of Y.

"IPCC: "A" will happen to the climate according to study "X".
AEI: "A" will not happen to the climate according to study "Y".

Climategate is about the validity of X, you're contesting the validity of Y."

Actually, Climategate -was- about the methods, techniques, and behaviors of a very limited number of scientists. Even if their results would have been tossed because of bad scientific methods, it's not as though that leaves AGW without many, many other scientists putting their imprimatur on the basic idea/conclusion - for all intents and purposes a consensus (albeit one that should treat honest skeptics openly and respectfully, provided their research is on the up-and-up and not of the sort like "OK, we were paid $10K to come up with an anti-AGW conclusion, let's find a way to get there.").

The validity of X did not rest solely on the CRU scientists, or Michael Mann.

My point about the conclusions of Y was basically a what's-good-for-the-goose kind of thing. Sure, research scientists should be open about what they do, but if the standard for transparency is to have any and all (at-work) e-mail correspondence brought into the light of day, and essentially any and all communications open for critique and review, then that standard should be applied to the skeptics at the various think tanks, too (scientists and non-scientists alike). Let's see all of Mr. Hayward's internal e-mails on this subject.

Not so fast, Craig. Mr. Hayward is a political analyst -- he has no sacred obligation to either methodological replication or peer-review. Your Climategate scientists did, and do, and these emails demonstrate their violation of both trusts. What this demonstrates is that "climate science" has morphed into a religion (or at least a political dogma), and should therefore no longer enjoy the patina of legitimacy granted by positivist science. This is always what happens when scientists forget their business and the source of their authority.

Anyone who has really looked into this issue knows that 1) the 'consensus' isn't that strong, 2) alternative explanations other than co2 emissions exist for whatever warming has occurred, and 3) the largess of the Federal government has polluted the issue beyond reliability. How to resolve this? More SCIENCE and less politics. Take legislation and international agreements off the table, and let's figure this thing out in a rational way. Turn off the tap of Federal grant dollars. Lock the crazy uncle (i.e., Al Bore) in a closet and let's have some real dialogue.

"This is just like the tobacco-is-harmless "research" that we got years ago"

The ambiguity here is priceless.

"The ambiguity here is priceless."

Sorry, Owl, for not bothering to take the time to write a detailed report about it. These guys already have, though:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Redwald, so I take it that the religion or dogma of global warming is not one that you'd like to see be integrated into our legal system?

Anyway, as for "the patina of legitimacy" I think the very best example of that actually comes from the political analyst you just defended (not a scientist):

Oh, look at this, some kind of scientific report on "indicators"!!

http://www.aei.org/book/100008

And its author is a "Doctor"! A "Fellow"! A "Senior Fellow"!!

"Public opinion data on advertising and marketing suggest growing public weariness with 'green' messages in general and messages on global warming in particular," Dr. Hayward said. "It's no wonder. The data show that..."

(The Doctor with a doctorate in.... "American Studies" - no science degrees or education)

THAT is what a "patina of legitimacy" actually looks like.

Well, Craig, I know what your doctorate is in -- advanced snarkology. While it's true that their are scientists in think tanks around the world, their place of employment does not obviate their obligations to the canons of science. When economists at AEI publish data, we have the expectation of scientific rigor (and I'm not talking about simple differences of perspective or errors in commission). If evidence of bad faith is found (as it was in the Climategate incident), then the guilty group has no special claim to legitimacy or credibility - all their work must necessarily come under scrutiny.

As for Mr. Hayward, I don't remember him ever claiming to be a climate scientist (and indeed, most experts associated with "right-wing" think tanks are economists by trade). Indeed, why do we generally value the opinions of university-based scientists more than scientists affiliated elsewhere? It's because we believe that they are less biased (having tenure and the like) and solidly committed to empirical replication, strict causal protocols, and peer review (the exact canons being violated by Climategate scientists). It seems increasingly clear that our expectations of university-based science aren't often being met, which is too bad. If scientists are going to act like any other hired guns for political agendas, then I see no reason for tenure or public support of their research.

Essentially, Craig, I find your whole comment irrelevant, as usual.

"Essentially, Craig, I find your whole comment irrelevant, as usual."

Then I have to wonder why you bothered to ramble on in response to it for two paragraphs... or even why you responded at all.

"While it's true that their are scientists in think tanks around the world, their place of employment does not obviate their obligations to the canons of science. When economists at AEI publish data...."

Economists are not scientists. They are definitely not climatologists or even meteorologists. Aside from that, Mr. Hayward is not an economist.

"If scientists are going to act like any other hired guns for political agendas, then I see no reason for tenure or public support of their research...."

But you're happy to gobble up whatever scientists AEI actually has employed as "hired guns."

Whatever you say, Redwald...

I respond to you for the sake of others. You are beyond redemption.

Ever heard of "social science," Craig. Economists most certainly do consider themselves scientists, and they are widely recognized as such by the NSF, the NIH, and virtually all other public and private funding sources (not to mention universities).

Being of a scientific bent myself, I never "gobble up" any kind of truth claim. And although I never expect scientists to be perfect (all have their bias), I know there are serious problems when they are conspiring to ruin or boycott journals or hide/destroy data. They have ceased to be scientists and are simply armorers for the culture wars.

"It seems increasingly clear that our expectations of university-based science aren't often being met, which is too bad. If scientists are going to act like any other hired guns for political agendas, then I see no reason for tenure or public support of their research."

To the extent that's true, Redwald, we might have found common cause. The problem is, the (vast) majority of examples that I find for such corruption (the "hired gun" critique) are those pushing conservative (and libertarian) agendas and working for corporate interests. Excellent case in point:

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

Excerpt:

"For the last few weeks, BP has been offering signing bonuses and lucrative pay to prominent scientists from public universities around the Gulf Coast to aid its defense against spill litigation.

BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company's lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research.

The Press-Register obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years....

More than one scientist interviewed by the Press-Register described being offered $250 an hour through BP lawyers. At eight hours a week, that amounts to $104,000 a year.

Scientists from Louisiana State University, University of Southern Mississippi and Texas A&M have reportedly accepted, according to academic officials. Scientists who study marine invertebrates, plankton, marsh environments, oceanography, sharks and other topics have been solicited.

The contract makes it clear that BP is seeking to add scientists to the legal team that will fight the Natural Resources Damage Assessment lawsuit that the federal government will bring as a result of the Gulf oil spill.

The government also filed a NRDA suit after the Exxon Valdez spill.

In developing its case, the government will draw on the large amount of scientific research conducted by academic institutions along the Gulf. Many scientists being pursued by BP serve at those institutions."

Thanks for schooling me on the position of economics in the social sciences. Let me put my snarkology training to work: I just had no idea!!!

In any case, I thought we were talking about atmospheric sciences (you know, whether global warming is really occurring or not, and what the pertinent scientists think will be necessary to limit or stop such warming) - my bad, though.

Consider yourself schooled, noob.

As for BP hiring the entirety of academe around the Gulf Coast, I'm not surprised. Given the legal tsunami they are about to face, I'd be loading my guns as well. The important point to remember is this: Regardless of his/her source of funding, scientists (both hard and soft) have an obligation to the scientific method first and foremost. If we catch BP-funded scientists fudging data, intimidating professional journals, or boycotting certain professionals because of their views, I'll be the first to condemn it.

But, back to the point, Climategate scientists are guilty of all these things, of that there can be no doubt. They have thrown away their legitimacy, and the world owes them no special reverence. How to reclaim legitimacy? Fire these people rather than defend them. Start afresh. Demand a strict scientific standard, and start scrutinizing the political pressure on academic institutions.

"If we catch BP-funded scientists fudging data, intimidating professional journals, or boycotting certain professionals because of their views, I'll be the first to condemn it."

Allow me to return the "schooling" favor, Redwald, and show you what you've apparently missed...

"a contract offered to scientists by BP. It prohibits the scientists from publishing their research, sharing it with other scientists or speaking about the data that they collect for at least the next three years....
...
The contract makes it clear that BP is seeking to add scientists to the legal team that will fight the Natural Resources Damage Assessment lawsuit that the federal government will bring as a result of the Gulf oil spill."

So, shouldn't you have already commenced the condemnation (at least of BP, for its blatant attempt to corrupt the scientific process by this attempt to bypass academic transparency (such as data-sharing and peer review)?? This contract seems rather damning.

Let the "schooling" continue. This is the difference between a "contract" and a "grant." BP is offering contracts, the results of which will be proprietary for a minimum of 3 years. This is done all the time in the hard sciences, and scientists understand what they are getting into at the outset.

Now, is it ethical? I think it is because 1) no one is preventing any other agency/company/interest from collecting their own data, 2) the terms are explicit from the onset, and 3) BP is not seeking (at least, not yet) to keep the results "secret" in perpetuity. Three years is a blink of the eye in scientific publishing -- I hear it often takes that long just to get past the reviewers.

Actually, it all sounds rather defensive in nature to me. I mean, they are trying to create an empirical database to moderate the outrageous claims that are sure to follow in the wake of this accident. Our judicial system does not require self-incrimination, after all.

I will admit that it isn't the most righteous thing for a scientist to agree to. I suspect they view it as necessary funding to study a huge problem that requires more money that routine agencies can provide. Who knows? Time will tell. One thing that IS true is that, money or no, these BP-funded scientists cannot fudge data, lie about what they find, nor intimidate other scientists and still remain scientists. The Climtategate scientists did these things, and they should be fired rather than defended.

Funny, Craig, how you've abandoned the defense of these global-warming priests. I guess you agree with me that they are scientific traitors who don't deserve to be believed. What BP-funded scientists do or don't do in the future doesn't change any aspect of Climategate.

"Funny, Craig, how you've abandoned the defense of these global-warming priests. I guess you agree with me that they are scientific traitors who don't deserve to be believed. What BP-funded scientists do or don't do in the future doesn't change any aspect of Climategate."

Frankly, red, I don't think they need me to defend them. They've already been cleared by 3 different investigations. Now admittedly, they'd surely be found guilty in the courts of Hannity or Beck (probably of multiple felonies resulting in a death penalty), but if you think there's a criminal case, or if you just want (another) independent investigation of their alleged - but thus far unproven - misdeeds, I suggest you start dialing authorities. And familiarize yourself with "innocent until proven guilty."

"....fudge data, lie about what they find, nor intimidate other scientists.... The Climtategate scientists did these things."

So says.... Redwald! (and his fellow conspiracy theorists - can't wait for this to make it to Beck's blackboard!)

So says....their own emails! You can cobble together all the university-based "independent" tribunals you desire, but none of them is truly independent. I've read those emails, and they are damning.

Of course, the Left is always into "that's not what they really meant." What BS.

And I'm no conspiracy theorists. It's not a theory when you catch them red-handed. Moreover, like most people (who don't have the burden of science), they see what's in their best interest to see. It's not really a conspiracy; more like a religion.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/15484