Not This Again.

[elfs]

So, there's a website called "So, Why Is Wikileaks A Good Thing Again?" in which the writers cherry-pick their complaints in order to make Wikileaks look... something. But one of their claims is this: "WikiLeaks has revealed how scientists manipulated global warming research data in order to make it seem more consequential."

However, it's fascinating to note that the link SWIWAGT provides goes to a November, 2009 article about so-called Climategate, in which leaked documents from climate scientists showed them to be working with data, using foul-mouthed language, trying to publish ahead of their peers, and generally being human.

However, inquiry after inquiry into whether or not the stolen emails are evidence of wrongdoing (and I emphasize "stolen" because this "evidence" was obtained by the commission of a crime, something the right seems unwilling to discuss), no less than five in all, including one viciously partisan ideological witchhunt here in the US, the conclusion has consistently been, "On the specific allegations made against the behavior of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

Only in FoxAndFriendsIstan is Climategate a scandal, a done deal, and evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a vast left-wing conspiracy. What's a scandal is that precious news and life cycles have to be burned refuting this crap over and over again.

Comments

[oldhans117.livejournal.com]

Only people who's only idea of a scientist is the Professor from Gilligan's Island think that academics are beings of pure logic. Real science work is pretty much a blood sport and for a theory to be accepted is quite a feat.

Hell my parents have an arch-rival over at Harvard who spent decades just attacking them.

[tagryn]

* Wikileaks' leaked diplomatic/war documents were stolen as well, so it all comes around full circle. To me, the difference is that the scientific process is supposed to be transparent and open and is built on the free sharing of information, while diplomacy is often a matter of negotiating conflicting interests between parties, where secrecy and confidences are necessary to promote trust where suspicion is the more natural emotion. So, in terms of promoting the ideal, the leaks were ultimately helpful in the CRU "Climategate" emails case while harmful in the Wikileaks cables case.

* That investigation you cite also stated, a couple of sentences later, "But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science." At the least, the CRU scientists in question allowed their desire as advocates to overcome their scientific professionalism in certain cases, and they got rightfully taken to task for that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

What's a scandal is that precious news and life cycles have to be burned refuting this crap over and over again.

Actually, I think that more news cycles need to be spent refuting this and other similar crap. And in the form of calling the clowns who keep repeating these lies liars, without repeating their talking-points.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

Hehe. As opposed to news cycles dedicated to whether or not Kim Kardashian wore panties last night? :)