When I read this just now immediately after having read Snowy's latest bit of idiocy directed at me, I couldn't help thinking that what follows is the sort of thing Snowy would do if he were a learned liberal lunatic (LLL)…
Mr. James Taranto:
The email's author, Michael Schlesinger an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, was so proud of what he had to say to New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin that he decided to send a copy to Hayward–and, one supposes, to Schlesinger's entire email list:
Shame on you for this gutter reportage.
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the 'Big Cutoff' from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
So Revkin accused climate scientists of prostituting themselves to a political agenda in order to get grant money? No, he did not.
Copenhagen Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards to city hotels warning summit guests not to patronize Danish sex workers during the upcoming conference. Now, the prostitutes have struck back, offering free sex to anyone who produces one of the warnings.
Schlesinger is all het up over that? As Mark Steyn notes, "Even by the standards of fanatical ideologues, these guys seem humorless plonkers." You thought they were telling you to "save the earth." Actually, it's "save the mirth."
A 'Profound Emergency' Not Worth Writing a Sentence About
"Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial," announces that editorial, produced by London's Guardian. "We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency. Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet" blah blah blah, etc.
To put it another way, this is such a dire emergency that the editorial boards of 55 newspapers (including, in this country, the Miami Herald) cannot be troubled to write a word about it. It's the equivalent of just filling space with wire copy–and in fact, that would work just as well, since the Associated Press has its own global-warmist editorial.
The Guardian even solicits "reader leaders" (to go with the extraterritorial editorial–ha ha, what wits), although if you scroll down on the page, you will see that a good many of the submissions have been "removed by a moderator." That is what scientists call peer review.
Actually, though, one can make the case that running a prefab global-warmist editorial is a sensible cost-saving move. No one would argue that the New York Times got its money's worth when it paid someone to write this:
No one should be misled by all the noise. The [East Anglia] e-mail messages represent years' worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don't change the underlying scientific facts about climate change. . . .
It is important that scientists behave professionally and openly. It is also important not to let one set of purloined e-mail messages undermine the science and the clear case for action, in Washington and in Copenhagen.
But in the very same section of the Times, "public editor" Clark Hoyt reports that science writers Andrew Revkin and John Tierney agree that "there is sharp debate over how fast the earth is warming, how much human activity is contributing and how severe the impact will be."
Oh well, at least the Times editorialists won't be subjected to the Big Cutoff.
A follow-up on a Friday item: We had faulted Politico for failing to ask Al Gore, in an interview published last Thursday, about the scientific misconduct revealed in the East Anglia emails. Mike Allen, Politico's chief political correspondent, says in an email to one of our colleagues: "Alas, we talked to him like a month before climate-gate." So instead we'll fault Politico for sitting on the interview until long after it became stale.
We Blame Global Warming
"Time to Take the Gloves Off in Pakistan"–headline, Commentary Web site, Dec. 4
We Blame Rumsfeld
"Rice an Unlikely Global Warming Culprit"–headline, Agence France-Presse, Dec. 5