Sunday, December 06, 2009
Unable to address the substantive issues – its hacks being quite incapable of research or analysis – the media have launched into reams of speculation about the "Climategate" leaks, all based on the single fact that, at the second or third attempt, the "whistleblower" uploaded the data onto a Russian server (webpage header grab above).
The Mail on Sunday, without spending any effort telling its readers what the issue is about, devotes a two-page spread to the most amazing tosh, built on entirely unsupported speculation. It is a classic of its kind.
Not to be outdone, The Times follows in its wake, with: "UN officials likened the Climategate controversy to Watergate today, claiming that computer hackers who stole thousands of e-mails sent by a senior climate scientist were probably paid to do it by people intent on undermining the Copenhagen summit."
And here we have our old friend Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He is quoted (again) saying that the theft from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit was not the work of amateur climate sceptics but a sophisticated and well-funded attempt to destroy public confidence in the science of manmade climate change.
He said the fact that the e-mails were first uploaded to a sceptic website from a computer in Russia was an indication that the culprit was paid.
At least his comments are entirely consistent with his religion: totally unsubstantiated and without a scintilla of good evidence. But how typical of the media that they should give this garbage house room when they are ignoring the massive scientific fraud under their very noses.