Bronx33
12-11-2009, 07:12 PM
Interesting take on the subject
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Global-warming-conspiracy-theories?cid=exrss-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner
I don't believe the Russians hacked East Anglia's servers to steal emails. I think that in response to Steven McIntyre's Freedom of Information Request, a bureaucrat prepared a folder with emails, documents and computer code to analyse. I think that when he or she decided to reject McIntyre's FOIA request, somebody either took the files and ran or, having already figured a way into the system, went in and grabbed the folder.
I don't think The Team that are implicated in unethical and perhaps illegal behaviour by those emails and files were part of a global conspiracy to invent global warming. Partly because I believe global warming is real, and partly because I don't think large conspiracies stay silent. I think that they had an informal conspiracy going to pump each others' careers up, peer review each others' papers, and slam any skeptics or lukewarmers who wandered within punching range--and later, after they realised how badly they had acted, they conspired to evade the Freedom of Information Act. Sadly, international scientists who relied on their information may have been tricked during the process--we'll have to wait and see how many scientific papers will have to be rewritten and how much science will have to be redone as a result of their misbehaviour. If I were Rosanne D'Arrigo, I'd be really ticked off...
I don't think that the media are conspiring to present only one side of the story or that they have been bought off. I think they are short-staffed with too many editorial holes to fill and cannot be expected to cover a story of this complexity.
I don't think skeptics have been bought off by big oil or are doing their bidding--especially as we see in the emails that The Team mentioned above are deeper in bed with them than the skeptics ever were. A few skeptics have on occasion accepted funding from sources that environmentalists consider 'impure.' Impure, that is, until they donate millions to a famous environmental NGO.
We don't need conspiracies for bad results to come out of this. All we need is for politics as usual, media as usual, science as usual and the public as usual to get the same usual mess of garbage. And we're getting it in spades.
I guess we're not tired of it yet.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Global-warming-conspiracy-theories?cid=exrss-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner
I don't believe the Russians hacked East Anglia's servers to steal emails. I think that in response to Steven McIntyre's Freedom of Information Request, a bureaucrat prepared a folder with emails, documents and computer code to analyse. I think that when he or she decided to reject McIntyre's FOIA request, somebody either took the files and ran or, having already figured a way into the system, went in and grabbed the folder.
I don't think The Team that are implicated in unethical and perhaps illegal behaviour by those emails and files were part of a global conspiracy to invent global warming. Partly because I believe global warming is real, and partly because I don't think large conspiracies stay silent. I think that they had an informal conspiracy going to pump each others' careers up, peer review each others' papers, and slam any skeptics or lukewarmers who wandered within punching range--and later, after they realised how badly they had acted, they conspired to evade the Freedom of Information Act. Sadly, international scientists who relied on their information may have been tricked during the process--we'll have to wait and see how many scientific papers will have to be rewritten and how much science will have to be redone as a result of their misbehaviour. If I were Rosanne D'Arrigo, I'd be really ticked off...
I don't think that the media are conspiring to present only one side of the story or that they have been bought off. I think they are short-staffed with too many editorial holes to fill and cannot be expected to cover a story of this complexity.
I don't think skeptics have been bought off by big oil or are doing their bidding--especially as we see in the emails that The Team mentioned above are deeper in bed with them than the skeptics ever were. A few skeptics have on occasion accepted funding from sources that environmentalists consider 'impure.' Impure, that is, until they donate millions to a famous environmental NGO.
We don't need conspiracies for bad results to come out of this. All we need is for politics as usual, media as usual, science as usual and the public as usual to get the same usual mess of garbage. And we're getting it in spades.
I guess we're not tired of it yet.