Let's briefly lay out our own observations here (my own, actually):
- Global temperatures go up and they go down for considerable periods of time. That's natural history as it stands.
- No one quite knows why this is or whether it's actually controllable.
- The second bullet point is certainly something any real scientist would call "interesting," and it's well worth investigating. But no one yet has made an independently verifiable airtight case in support of any theory which is essentially what you have to do in a scientifically valid proof.
Over the past week, we've finally gotten proof that the whole "global warming consensus" (AWG to the cognoscenti) has been gamed all along, something we'd always suspected given the Stalinist treatment accorded anyone daring to dissent from said consensus. From the long-ruined humanities to the now-discredited sciences, this is what happens to the integrity of your academic discipline when political outcome becomes your methodology.
The story is still growing longer and longer legs. For your reading pleasure, here's a brief compendium of the latest useful links:
- "Cleaning Out the Climate Cesspool." A good summation of the political and economic fallout resulting from the exposure of this massive hoax.
- "Warmergate Wrap" from the always appreciated Aussie Daily Telegraph. Money quote from Col. Mortimer: "This person/persons [the hacker or hackers who exposed ClimateGate] may well have broken the backs of the Global Warming Priests who did everything in their power to make sure that the common man, and those who would oppose them, had no direct access to the Spoken Word of God."
- "A Climate Scientist Who Engages Skeptics." Sagacious advice to would-be science students about how the scientific method (open inquiry, open datasets, etc.) should work but didn't work in the current scandal. Surprisingly evenhanded for a New York Times-linked site that's by and for eco-fanatics.
- "Data-leak lessons learned from 'Climategate' hack." What the ClimateGate perps should have done to conceal their fraud. Not exactly helpful in this context as it will encourage the eco-terrorists to perfect their techniques for concealment. Nonetheless, it shows you what a bunch of duffers the current ClimateGate perps were when it came to elementary computer security, which doesn't give you much confidence in their own cliamate "science," come to think of it.
- "Secrecy in Science is a Corrosive Force." Yeah, it is. Read more via this link.
- New York Times won't publish stuff that wasn't intended to be published, via the Weekly Standard online. Gotta laugh at this one. This is the same newspaper that happily exposed our intelligence agents via publishing leaked info when they could hurt Bush with it. But they don't want to indulge the evil leakers of ClimateGate. Gimme a break...
- "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic' Global Warming." [Or AGW to the cognoscienti, with "anthropogenic"being the seventy-five cent word for "caused by humans."] a UK Telegraph cut-and-dried case against the fraudsters. Well done.
- "Climategate: the travails of a global warming hobbyist." Amusing but insightful piece by Terry Hughes. Money quote: "It appears that Jones and the CRU folks didn’t simply massage the data. As other pundits have pointed out, they waterboarded it."
- "IPCC too "politicised" to survive." An Aussie take on the issue. A good place to wrap this up, too, as he helpfully includes the following scurrilous YouTube allegory. (PS: I can't vouch for the accuracy of the translations here!)
Many other good articles out there and the list grows exponentially. But that's enuff for now. Hat tip to all my sources, including Drudge, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, The Interface, and others.