The hacked emails and documents from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) are a significant story, although some elements of the media still are running around with their fingers in their ears. Doug Ross catches the Boston Globe, and finds the readers informing the editors. Pwnd! Click over to DR to enjoy the comments. P.J. Gladnick found a similar situation in comments to another dire global warming story in the Houston Chronicle, and does a sweet impression of the HAL 9000 from 2001. From the latter:
University of East Anglia? Hmmm... Where have I heard about this university in the recent past? Something about hacked e-mails, manipulated data, and a coverup? This editorial won't bring up the scandal that dare not speak its name but the readers are not shy about bringing it up over and over and over again:
Oh dear .. I think you have a bit of catching up to do.
Scandal? What scandal? We're as willfully clueless about this as Charlie Gibson is about the ACORN scandal.
Apparently, the clowns on the Houston Comical editorial board do zero research prior to sitting down at the keyboard to compose their lies. The "researchers" at East Anglia have been exposed as the perpetrators of a massive fraud by manipulating statistics. Yet, here comes the Comical citing the liars at East Anglia in support of their thesis. It's all over the news - even the Houston Comical. (Maybe the editorial board doesn't read the Comical - only the press releases of the DNC.)
Bottom line here for the MSM; you can try to avoid mentioning Climategate in your global warming stories but your readers are sure to remind you of your deliberate oversight. Oh how they will remind you!
Robert Tracinski has a piece discussing the "Climategate" scandal over at Real Clear Politics. In particular, he finds strong evidence of manipulation of the scientific climate journals' peer review process to ostracize those who don't toe the line.
But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.
And that is precisely what we find.
Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."
This is a story - like the ACORN videos, like the forged Bush TANG letters - that the MSM ignores at their own peril. Eventually a story will have to be written documenting, discussing and analyzing the actions of those "scientists" who rigged the game.
They might as well start researching and writing them now. To wait any longer simply confirms the suspicions of those who are no longer buying their papers, and worse, the suspicions of those who will stop buying in the future.