How The Science Gets Settled
by Mark Steyn in National Review Online's The Corner
It all depends on how you look at it. From The Boston Herald:
In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.
From The Guardian:
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years.
Yes, it's awfully stressful having to develop models to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, "balance the needs of the science and the IPCC", pressure scientific journals to exclude dissenting views, and delete (illegally) material requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Climate change" and "health care" are different ends of the same stick: They're both all-purpose pretexts for regulating every aspect of your life. Don't take my word for it - listen to the Belgian nonentity upgraded on Friday to the Holy Roman Emperor de nos jours:
2009 is also the first year of global governance.
Did you get that memo? And, if you disagree, who do you call? Who do you vote out of office if you want a change in "global governance"? Previewing Copenhagen, global warm-monger Tim Flannery is entirely upfront about the end-game:
We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case... They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.
And surely that admirable goal justifies a little bit of "hiding the decline" and other sleights.
You can read a lot more about this at Climate Report.com and Watts Up With That.
No comments:
Post a Comment