What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Monckton, on Climategate...

...pulls no punches. Some bits:

"This is what they did — these climate 'scientists' on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen...

"The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists...tampered with temperature data...One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia...reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record...

"Worse, these arrogant fraudsters...have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up...

"Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen...have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act ...They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks..."

Meanwhile, The NYT provides a bit of comic relief:

"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."

Cue gales of derisive laughter.

Comments (12)

Steve, I'm very glad and relieved that you do not feel that we're not allowed to talk about this on the grounds that it was leaked, _possibly_ (though not certainly) illegally.

Wesley J. Smith has been writing a lot about the global warming hype and how ridiculous it is, but his lawyer's training kicked in when this came out, and the only thing he appears to be intending to post about it is how terrible such "Nixonian" tactics are, etc. It's apparently the same principle that we get where the police aren't allowed to use in court evidence--even overwhelmingly strong evidence--that was obtained without a warrant.

But this is a matter of drawing our own conclusions on a question of public moment. And for that purpose, evidence is evidence.

Can you imagine anyone on the left taking this approach if information had turned up in a similar way to the discredit of, say, Sarah Palin? The question answers itself.

Exactly. I can't say strongly enough how strong of a fan I am of much of what Dr. Smith does and says. In this case however, I was rather shocked when this story hit. It seems his position was, "Releasing this private information was wrong." End of discussion.

This completely ignored the idea that, now that we have said information, shouldn't we at least consider that? His contention that such means stifle discussion is just bizarre, given that the info contained within the previously secret memos was an effort to do just that—stop discussion.

I think one can be willing to both concede that the actions in this case may have been wrong, yet one can still legitimately look at the information that resulted. Dr. Smith apparently does not.

I think Bruce Chapman's block entry on the Discovery blog summed up what has become Dr. Smiths response, "Regardless, there will be a major spin effort to make the story the crime of hacking..." as if the /hacking/ is the only malicious and vile act going on here.

I also liked Chapman's note, "Apply Chapman's "Shoe on the Other Foot" rule and imagine the outpouring of journalistic indignation and investigation if the story was that evidence supporting climate warming had been suppressed."

(link if interested: http://www.discoverynews.org/2009/11/science_conspiracy028471.php )

My main question now is: are they going to ask Al Gore to give the prize money back?

Meanwhile, The NYT provides a bit of comic relief:

"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."

Yes, it is ironic that they had no such qualms about the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Lydia, at this point I think that the most likely explanation is that these amazing documents were not "hacked," by an outsider, but *leaked*, by an inside whistle-blower.

I think that we already know enough to conclude that, as scientific scandals go, this is bigger than Tuskegee.

Way, way bigger.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Its the same story; massage the data to fit the narrative and destroy the enemy who suggests an alternative explanation. Commitment to one's own or the group's security and esteem comes first. Disinterested service to truth is good to have, but not indispensable. The amusing part is that these partisans would among the first to invoke the ghost of Galileo whenever the Catholic Chuch needs some bashing.

I could almost feel sorry for the little people who live and breathe on what the NY Times tells them. So much of their selves is invested in the company line, their very identity it would seem. With that, and through the larger and all encompassing prism of liberal politics, it's safe to say meaning is located.
Oh the crash !!
Well, they're just going to have to locate other crutches for assumed superiority. Some things you just can't give up.

I couldn't care less if the information was obtained by a hacker or by a whistleblower. Legality is not morality. Guess what? The American Revolution was "illegal" too. You aren't obligated to roll over for a tyrant just because he makes a "law" saying that you're not allowed to resist him, or twists and abuses existing laws beyond their intended purpose to prevent you from resisting him.

Nothing was stolen here. It's not like something was taken away from the CRU. They still have their emails. They still have the truth. It's just that now we do too. Information can only be spread, not stolen. The alternative is that whenever somebody tries to lie to you, and you manage to get the truth from them, you have thereby "stolen" the truth.

While this isn't an issue of stealing, it does technically violate the letter of the law (assuming a hacker obtained the information). However, the law in question was never designed to enable deceit (and if they had been, that would make them illegitimate). Meanwhile, the scientists themselves were flagrantly violating laws that were specifically intended to prevent deceit of the public. The hacking, if it was a hacking, was a case of breaking the letter of the law in service to the purpose of the law.

Look at the stakes here. These scientists have been defrauding the public for the purposes of setting up an authoritarian, trans-national supergovernment that will supersede national sovereignty. I think a little civil disobedience against the rules of national governments is perfectly called for here, particularly when you consider that it is being done to preserve their continued existence. We are in a *war* here, a war for civilization itself, and if we allow ourselves to be hamstrung by abuses of the law by people who care nothing for law, we are going to get rolled.

Heh, that last post was me. Well, I guess you guys know my real name now :-).

The purpose of our education is to take good minds and turn them into culturally-Marxised mush. It's why liberals are often just stupid Marxist proles, except they are sipping lattes.

Steve, if you're still reading this thread, what do you think will be the upshot of Climategate in the long run? For example, do you think that a generation from now, children in public schools will still be taught man-caused global warming as fact, as they are now?

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.