WSJ opinion page on ClimateGate: No facts? No problem
Who needs objective facts when you have the Wall Street Journal’s vaunted opinion section? L. Gordon Crovitz pushes forward the ‘not a hacker’ meme at a newspaper that wants to be the paper of record for America and the world:
For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.
The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name “FOI,” were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.
via Gordon Crovitz: The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths – WSJ.com.
How did the existence of a ‘whistleblower’ become ‘apparent’ to you Mr. Crovitz? The world would love to know. Also, the leaker was called FOIA, not FOI, and the Guardian columnist who did the soul-searching is named George Monbiot, not ‘George Monbriot’ as the WSJ’s opinion section noted. Way to go, copy editors and fact-checkers! You’re worth every penny!
It’s worth pointing out, of course, that other champions of the ClimateGate controversy don’t need to rely on the canard of the imaginary whistleblower at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in order to make their point. Here’s Michael Barone coming right out and saying in RealClearPolitics that a hacker stole the data from UEA’s systems:
The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on manmade global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.
Barone’s telling of the tale is virtually identical to Crovitz’s. But unlike Crovitz, Barone isn’t so fearful of relying on information obtained by likely criminal means that he has to imagine a whistleblower friend into existence. There’s a big difference between the two, and I salute Barone for not being intellectually dishonest in his recitation.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I am content to let the congressional investigations, and criminal investigations of the failure to comply with FOI requests, and University investigations run their course. In the meantime, I quit reading your column after the second non-relevant, personal, ad hominem attack. Your style is the signature style of AGW adherents. Your personal opinion on someone’s lack of spelling ability is not only uncivil, but irrelevant.
[...] WSJ Opinion Page on ClimateGate: No Facts? No Problem [...]
[...] glad that Boxer has questions about the criminal dimension of this case, what with powerful conservative voices in America trying to cover up the cyber crime that resulted in ClimateGate. But what’s with the [...]