WHEN IT COMES TO GLOBAL WARMING FRAUDS, ANYWAY

After reading the Great Warmal Fraud e-mails, the New York Times Enviro-blog sniffs:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

Say–weren’t the highly-classified secrets published on the front page of the Times also “acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye”? But that didn’t stop them from aiding and abetting the enemy, did it?

Those e-mails aren’t just someone’s love letters; they’re the very basis of a massive new scheme of national and international taxes, regulation and governance–and they’re fraudulent to the core. But the Times says you don’t need to know.

The New York Times warns terrorists, but it won’t warn you. Here’s what the Times said when it warned terrorists that Dick Cheney was listening to their phone calls:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

“Some”.

By the way, Obama has also been listening to terrorists’ phone calls just like Cheney did; the difference is, Obama’s people think Maj. Hasan had a Constitutional Right to call al Qaeda and chitty-chat about women, baseball, the weather, jihad–whatever pops up.

Michael Goldfarb:

As a journalist, there is no greater glory than publishing materials that were not meant to be published. If I could, I would only publish emails and documents that were never meant to see the light of day — though, unlike the New York Times, I draw the line at jeopardizing the lives of American troops rather than jeopardizing the contrived “consensus” on global warming.

Once again, it’s Anti-News, designed to subtract from the sum of human knowledge, leaving you knowing less about a subject than when you began:

“Women, Minorities and Liberal Sacred Cows Hardest Hit.”

UPDATE: It seems like a good time to re-post this from September:

Blinded by Science-ish-Type-Stuff

THE OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE:

“Take my word for it.”

It’s been a long time, but I still remember being taught about the Scientific Method: you observe a phenomenon, you posit a hypothesis to explain it, and prove or disprove it by conducting experiments that other scientists can duplicate, thus confirming your conclusion.

Ace:

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist …politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’ response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Now since then, FOIA requests for the data have been filed, and an increasing number of scientists have been curious to see precisely what exactly the evidence is of the much-heralded 0.6 degree Centigrade rise in temperature this century we’ve heard so very much about.

The new answer?

We lost all the old data so we can’t provide it to you.

“The dog ate my Global homework…but she’ll vouch for me! Lassie, come here, girl; if the Hockey Stick is accurate, bark once!”
“Arf!”
“See–that proves it!”

The reason “why” you should “make the data available” is because BY DEFINITION, THAT’S WHAT SCIENCE IS!

Even making it available to skeptics. Especially to skeptics. If they get the same results, BAM–you win!

Here’s the good news, though; because you say it’s rock-solid science…you should be able to duplicate the result again!

And not to rub it in, but if you had shared your research, you would still have a copy today. Or you can always sift through Lassie’s stools. We’ll take your word for what it says.

Again.

But never again again.