Friday, November 27, 2009

Damage limitation

The New York Times obviously feels that "Climategate" is sufficiently damaging to warrant a soft-focus piece explaining how broad-minded and cuddly the warmists really are.

But alongside Moonbat, we're now getting the Ecologist breaking ranks, with editor Mark Anslow writing a piece headed: "Shame on the 'climategate' scientists".

Make no mistake, he says, "the emails from the University of East Anglia climate scientists which were obtained from a hacked server and posted onto the internet in November paint a shocking picture."

James Delingpole is still on the case, picking up news from Bishop Hill, retailing an account of an attempt by the warmist establishment to "whitewash" the affair. Shouldn't that be greenwash?

Lord Rees, of the Royal Society, it appears, is to carry out an inquiry on the affair – the very same man who, but a few days ago, was telling us that "the science of climate change is more alarming than ever."

That phrasing is exactly as published by the BBC and, although they did not intend it, the meaning is truer than it ever has been before. The "science" is indeed alarming.

Nevertheless, despite over 9.1 million pages on "Climategate" now being posted on Google - with "climate guatemala" being offered as a prompt for those who try to look it up – the MSM are still fighting shy of the scandal.

This is somewhat assisted by the iron grip exercised by William Connolley over the content of the Wikipedia entry on "Climategate". Seekers are redirected to an entry on the CRU e-mail hacking incident and references to "Climategate" are rigorously excluded. "A blatant attempt at censorship," complains one frustrated would-be contributor.

Nonetheless, the warmists are not getting it all their own way. Delingpole now reports that one of Michael "hockey-stick" Mann's IPCC co-authors has demanded that Mann should be banned from contributing to future reports because his scientific assessments are "not credible any more." This is Eduardo Zorita, who declares on his website that the "scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas."

This is perhaps just as well as WUWT is reporting that Mann has got it upside-down again. Give it time and an upside-down bucket of merde will be descending on the great Mann.