Climategate Implosion is Bush's Fault

There is a lot to read about Climategate, but none of it is in the Mainstream Media, with the exception of the Obama-Administration described “not real news” organization. That would be Fox News, which is covering the story.

The New York Times, in a stunning bit of hypocrisy, says they won’t report on Climategate because they didn’t like the way the information was discovered. To the NY TImes, the real story, if they ever deign to cover it, will be about the method in which the story was found, and the ends not justifying means.

There is a valid nit to pick over hacking and how it threatens not just programs but governments and individuals. But when an entire global movement, with accompanying financial interests and public bullying has been founded on “science” that is -at the very least- now confirmed to be “unsettled,” that information, regardless of how it was brought to light, needs to be reported on and investigated.

The NY Times’ prim distaste for the means of disclosure on this issue rather reminds me of a few years back, when someone leaded a memo from the Senate Intelligence Committee, whereby Sen. Jay Rockefeller suggested strategies to undermine “Bush’s war,” and the mainstream media ignored the content of the memo, while waxing indignant over the leak.

The standard media, it seems, only like leaks when they serve their own agendas, or take down their perceived enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, they don’t like this Climategate Story, not at all. Troubling links and trouble, trouble for the narrative.

Let me tell you why the press is blacking out the Climategate story:

In a nutshell, Climategate is a destroyer of world-views. As someone who has always maintained that the AGW hype was a matter of politicians and grifters seizing an opportunity to use unsettled science as a means of getting filthy rich while imposing harsh measures against human freedom, I am very familiar with the world-view of the alarmists. Whenever I wrote about the “hoo-hah” of AGW (and particularly of Al Gore’s stupendous, international fake-out and hypocrisy), my email would load up with people telling me I was “a stupid hick,” unschooled in scientific method (just like Al Gore) and therefore unentitled to opine on anything, so I should just “shut up” and “go away” and of course, I was a “nazi.” These emails occasionally ended with a diatribe against George W. Bush for good measure, and suggested he and I were both “criminals” against humanity. One person even accused me of being Barbara Bush, in disguise.

All of that was standard-issue hate, but nowhere as amusing as the occasional “Sinner, fry in hell” emails I will get from a Jack Chicker, so I stopped reading them long ago.

But I also had a journalist I admired, and who I still consider a friend, privately and gently suggest that if I doubted the truth about AGW then I was as deluded (and perhaps as evil) as a “holocaust denier.”

Yes. The left went that far. The press went that far. They embraced this unsettled science, this unproven theory, with a fervor of moral righteousness; to dispute AGW was to be a bad and stupid person, even if were a dissenting scientist.

To question the point of “environmentally sound” lightbulbs that give bad light and create a dangerous and toxic risk when they break was to “not get the point,” which was that the planet was “dying” thanks to Hanukkah candles and incandescent lightbulbs.

To suggest that large-numbers of privileged people flying scores of private planes to exotic locals, gorging themselves on fine fare while deciding how the common folk ought to live, in order to “save” the planet from AGW was bizarre, wasteful and hypocritical in an era of video-conferencing, was to be sniffed at as “insipid.” Didn’t one understand the power of the Gore Indulgence carbon-offset? Just pay some money to the man with the absolute moral authority on all things green, and your sins are covered. Somewhere, a tree is planted.

The scam of AGW was permitted to gain the foothold it did, because of George W. Bush.

It’s Bush’s fault: if Bush had not fought back when CBS News called Florida for Al Gore before polls in the panhandle had closed, if Bush had not taken Gore’s selective re-count to the Supreme Court, if Bush had just taken those hanging chads like a man and allowed Al Gore to ascend to the presidency (as he’d been groomed to do before he sighed and fumed his way through debates, put his common sense into a lockbox and stumbled into the Buddhist convent, discovering the existence of “no controlling legal authority,”) whether the Vice-President actually won or not (the NY Times eventually admitted “not”) then Al Gore would not have had to seek redemption and his fortune in climate hucksterism, and the left would not have had to over-indulge him in it, overcompensating in order to “kick Bush in the leg.

That’s basically it. The AGW/Climate Change question became a rigorous boondoggle that got out of control not because the scientist who first suggested a connection between human carbon emission and a change in climate were bad people, or that the question was not worth asking, but because bad people then took the uncertain hypothesis, put it on media-fueled steroids, demonized anyone who disagreed with them, made it political -so much so that even the scientists got caught up in the good/bad, smart/stupid, Gore/Bush, Left/Right identifiers- and found real power there; they allowed the AGW movement to become the dubious centering pole upholding the giant circus tent of their worldviews.

As such, it is not permitted to be shaken. Shake the centering pole, and everything could come tumbling down: Oh. My. Gawd! If the Gore-doubters were right about this, what else might they be right about? And if they’re all stupid, and I’m smart, but they’re right and I’m wrong . . .

Implosion.

If the true-believers of AGW got this wrong, and they’d attached it to all of their politics, all of their hate, all of their superiority, then everything is in a free-fall.

And this is why the mainstream media cannot possibly report on Climategate until they have an acceptable counter-narrative that they can haul out in order to either debunk the story or soften its edges, even as they break the news.

The press, who spent a huge portion of their credibility convincing America that President Bush was a “liar” and a “power-abuser” and an “arrogant chump who made the world (read Chirac and Schroeder) hate us” and then spent the balance of their capital carrying into office a man whose every utterance comes with an expiration date, who seems to have very quickly abused his power and has treated our traditional allies (who were partnering well with the United States from 2004-on) with contempt or disinterest. The press really cannot afford to admit that almost nothing they have said in the past 9 years has escaped ideological or political framing to suit their agenda. Implode, they will.

So the story must not be told, until it can be told from their self-protective angle which is undoubtedly under development as you read this.

This reminds me of Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, back when Iraq had its first successful election -when even the press could not snarl too much at the pictures of women in hijab pointing their purple fingers in the air as they grinned. “What if Bush was right,” Stewart mused, with a horrified expression.


“What if Bush – the president, ours – has been right about [Iraq] all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may – and, again, I don’t know if I can physically do this – implode.”

There is an anvil-heavy irony to all of this. Part of the smart/stupid, left/right narrative was built on the fantastic strawman that the AGW-doubters on the right were “enemies of science,” that first they were not allowing science to use human embryos for experimentation, and now they were daring to doubt the most imperative scientific advice in the history of mankind.

But if the excesses of the weather-sciences are about be discredited to the degree that -as some worry- may “bring all science into dispute”, then that harm comes not from the right, who simply dared to question, but solely from the left, who refused to permit questions, openness, transparency.

Well, let’s get to the bottom of all of this, and then let us try -if it is possible, any longer- to become a saner world, say I.

Let Al Gore keep his ill-gotten booty and his stupid Academy Award and his worthless Nobel Peace Prize, and let him go away, somewhere, to an abode that is at least as “green” as President Bush’s despised ranch in Texas.

Let people once more get on a commercial air flight without being pestered about how they are guilty of earth-murder.

Let’s name the grifters, disassemble the dubious global policies that have been hovering for landing in Copenhagen, admit that the greatest threat to the world and its people is predicated on bombs and hate rather than some feckless, unprovable idea, and then let’s prepare for the cold, cold winter with some good old-fashioned oil-drilling while we finally begin to debate a nuclear future.

In truth, I just want my incandescent lightbulbs back, please.

Related:
Start Here: This is plain fascinating
PJM -Martin: Climategate violates social contract of science
PJM- Murray: 3 Things You Must Know about Climategate
Monbiot: AGW Rigged?
RCP: The Fix is In
CBS: looking into the leak, natch
Melanie Phillips: Green Totalitarianism
Andrew Bolt: The Global Conspiracy
James Delingpole: The Great British Climate Fraud
Obama’s Science Czar: Involved in Climategate?
True Believer: “Shaken” by Climategate

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Shane O.

    Great post, Anchoress.

    I just wanted to comment about the energy-efficient bulbs. I replaced my whole basement with them about 1 year ago. About half of them have burned out since then, which is not any better (perhaps worse) than the incandescent bulbs they replaced. Add in the fact that lights are usually on when it’s colder/cooler (at night and in the winter), and the extra heat ‘lost’ from incandescent is no longer a waste. Add in the other fact that they’re a heck of a lot cheaper and less toxic than the swirly ones, and it’s a no brainer that the government shouldn’t be doing anything to take my bulbs away from me.

  • JJM

    Happy Thanksgiving, Anchoress!

    The problem, of course, is not with climate science and it never has been.

    It’s with climate scientism.

  • azcIII

    Dry valleys,

    Just out of curiosity, but this doesn’t make sense, and could be construed to be something of an “appeal to authority” logical fallacy.

    “In fact many of the scientists who were quoted by it say that their views were misrepresented & they wouldn’t have taken part if they’d known how his comments would be put across. He then filed an official complaint.”

    “many of the scientists” “their views” “they wouldn’t” and then you revert to the singular “his comments” and “He then filed”

    I have not seen the video (?) in question and have never visited this site, but this comment struck me as odd. perhaps you could clarify? Were there many scientists or just one? Happy Thanksgiving!

  • Stan

    I’m still waiting for someone to explain how shutting down the clean factories here and moving production to the much more polluting factories in China will reduce pollution.

    Just wondering…after all Chinese industry pollutes far more per unit of production than industry in the developed world so it seems the Copenhagen treaty would increase pollution, not reduce it..

  • SKay

    “In truth, I just want my incandescent lightbulbs back, please.”

    Exactly!

  • James

    Blaming Bush for what Gore did after losing the election makes no sense in any logical way. That’s like saying that you’d be to blame for the columbine shooting because you passed the shooter (who you’d never seen before) in the street early that morning and you didn’t call the police to arrest him (even though he hadn’t done anything yet, and you had no reason to suspect he ever would do anything). Maybe you were being sarcastic and if that’s the case then I apologise. However, if you were serious then you need to seriously work on your logic.

    [Um. Yes. I was being sarcastic. -admin]

  • political hack

    Polluting is a crime.

    Polluting should be a crime.

    But Carbon, Rainwater, and Babies are NOT forms of pollution.

  • Lummox JR

    Global warming didn’t take on the religious fervor it now has among its disciples because Al Gore used it for his own self-aggrandizement. He hitched his horse to that cart to give himself some relevance, but the cart already had significant momentum. The whole issue was highly politically charged throughout the ’90s and even in the late ’80s; even when I first heard about it it had that special stink of someone grinding an ax. Before Gore got involved, people who desperately sought any reason at all to hate Bush tried to use Kyoto against him, in spite of the fact that in the ’90s the Senate had already very sensibly said NO.

    Al Gore’s only real contribution was to make a movie that the media collaboratively touted as a must-see film, and then use that film to falsely claim an overwhelming consensus and throw a lot of alarmist garbage in people’s faces. The sorts of people who see movies based on a film’s social importance had already had a few sips of the Kool-Aid anyway, so the film didn’t so much change minds as sweep healthy doubts under the carpet. Hopefully the revelation of the scope of this fraud will not only ignite real discussion of the science but also completely ruin the careers of anyone who has used this for political gain.

    If AGW is real, let’s handle it with real, honest, open science and let skeptics take sledgehammers to any point that isn’t bedrock-solid. Let’s consider all variables instead of just CO2, because pretending climate is one-dimensional is idiotic. Let’s talk openly about other methods of sequestering carbon, like seeding forests or even geoengineering, instead of insisting the only solution is to drive the world into poverty. The people who politicized this don’t only want to force a narrow view of the (alleged) problem, they want to force a specific solution. We should tolerate neither.

  • Pingback: Furious Diaper » Blog Archive » If they only had a brain

  • http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-i-dont-mourn-walter-cronkite.html Moneyrunner

    The Science Bubble Explodes

    The 21st Century has, in less than a decade, seen the explosion of three “bubbles.” In 2001 we saw the tech bubble explode, leaving in its wake the collapse of numerous fortunes and a renewed appreciation for value rather than promises of ever more extravagant high-tech dreams. Tech stocks were valued at hundreds if not thousand times their earnings, and even more if they had no earnings at all. And then it all came tumbling down and took with them venerable names like Bell Labs (Lucent).

    Swearing that the stock market was rigged, people decided to put their money in houses. “Real estate never goes down” was the new mantra, and as evidence we saw houses “flipped” – on TV – for huge profits and real estate assessments climb 20, 30 or 40% per year, proving how to get rich by simply buying your own home. And then the real estate bubble burst and crushed people whose mortgages were larger, much larger than their homes’ values. And the people who owned these mortgages? They could not get rid of their worthless loans and venerable names like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went out of business, whole governments throughout the world injected capital (read credibility) into the remaining lenders to prevent a total global financial collapse.

    And now, out of the blue, we see something that the innocent bystanders never expected to see: a collapse of the “science bubble.” It’s early yet in this collapse. As in previous bubbles, the professionals, the press and the government tell us that it’s just a blip. Here are some echoes of the past:

    “Buy Enron when it’s down 50%” was the advice; you’ll never see it this cheap again!

    Here’s your chance to buy your dream house at low, low interest rates … no money down, no principal payment for 10 years! No credit, no job, no problem!

    And now we’re told that the global warming science is still settled even though the “scientists” pushing global warming conspired to keep opponents from publishing, created computer models that were pure sludge, refused to share their data so that it could be checked, and claimed that they lost large parts of their original data. And the experts, press and politicians are telling us that it’s just a blip, a glitch, not to worry, they know what they’re doings and that they are going ahead with their plans to re-make the world.

    The unforeseen outcome of this scandal goes way beyond the issue off global warming. Just as the collapse of the tech bubble did not just affect one or two companies or even just tech stocks, and the collapse of the housing bubble did not just affect homeowners. Scientists in all fields will be eyed with suspicion. The next time I read a news article that includes the phrase “scientists say,” my BS detectors will go off. Because scientists say a lot of things and it’s now apparent that a lot of it is a lie.

  • Pingback: Ed Driscoll » Climategate: The Destroyer Of World-Views

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    “I’ve never encountered these hectoring greens. But I’ve seen a lot of people, Philips & Delingpole at the forefront, getting absolutely incandescent at the thought. There’s something about environmentalism that just enrages them beyond all measure.”

    Environmentalism, no. Evangelism, yes. They don’t want to be told how to live based on science that isn’t scientific.

  • John

    It does make you wonder what else the conventional wisdom is mistaken about. Since the “criminality” of the invasion of Iraq is settled by some of the same folks, I’ll just throw this out there…

  • Les Nessman

    ” But I also had a journalist I admired, and who I still consider a friend, privately and gently suggest that if I doubted the truth about AGW then I was as deluded (and perhaps as evil) as a “holocaust denier.” ”

    -

    Soooo, what does this journalist have to say now?
    Perhaps it’s your turn to gently suggest that if he wasn’t skeptical now, then he is deluded and perhaps evil. But say it with a smile.

    [It's not my way - admin]

  • Les Nessman

    ” [It's not my way - admin] ”

    I figured that was the case.

    Snark aside, what does this ‘friend’ now say?

  • Pingback: Why is Obama still going to Copenhagen? » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  • Pingback: Climategate Continues at Patriots for Freedom

  • Pingback: Staying on top of Climategate » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  • Pingback: The Anchoress | A First Things Blog


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X