'Demonstrable Idiot Conservative Liar' Pushes Climate Science Pseudo-Scandal

In a startling and indeed shocking development, Jonah Goldberg -- of all people! -- writes a pompous column full of stupid lies.

In a long string of embarrassing e-mail exchanges, CRU scientists discuss with friendly outside colleagues, including Penn State University's Michael Mann, how to manipulate the data they want to show the world, and how to hide the often flawed data they don't. In one exchange, they discuss the "trick" of how to "hide the decline" in global temperatures since the 1960s.

That's just a pack of dumb lies. First, global temperatures have not dropped since the 1960s, as highly advanced thermometer technology and sophisticated mathematics of the "this number is higher than that other number" class reveal. Second, the trick was not an attempt to deceive, but to do with an attempt to consider an anomaly in tree ring temperature data. Third, fuck you Jonah Goldberg, you ass.

Again and again, the researchers don't object to just inconvenient truths but also inconvenient truth-tellers. They contemplate and orchestrate efforts to purge scientists and journals who won't sing the same global warming hymnal.

In one instance, Phil Jones, the CRU director, says a scientific journal must "rid (itself) of this troublesome editor," who happened to publish a problematic paper. In another, Jones says we "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" 

These documents reveal the trick behind how they hide the dissent. Climate change activists often dismiss critics by noting that the skeptics haven't offered their arguments in peer-reviewed literature. Hence why they work so hard to keep dissenters out of the literature!

In the real world, this was to do with a scandal involving crap science getting published in a reputable scientific publication, and scientists who don't like crap science getting published in reputable scientific publications getting annoyed at this development. It was a response to inconvenient bullshit. Reputable scientific publications, you know, have standards of "being factually right" that are alien to publications such as, oh, the Los Angeles Times, which for political affirmative action reasons provide op-ed space to demonstrable idiot conservative liars.

Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations. The grantors want the grantees to confirm the global warming "consensus." The tenure and peer-review processes likewise hinge on conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean climate change is untrue, but it does mean sloppiness and bias are unavoidable.

Jonah Goldberg is making this critique. Jonah Goldberg. Well, he'd be the expert on the production of sloppy sub-moron level dishonest suck-up hackery, I guess, as this very column proves. 

For further fun, he says that journalists should have learned from the Iraq/WMD's "fiasco" to never trust The Man, stupid journalists. Which is insanely hypocritical! Somebody really needs to write an important incisive op-ed column about the dangers of intellectual hypocrisy... oh hello, Jonah Goldberg!

The American Enterprise Institute's "Enterprise Blog" recently ran a chart from a J.P. Morgan report showing that less than 10% of President Obama's Cabinet has private-sector experience, the least of any Cabinet in a century. From the stimulus to healthcare reform and cap-and-trade, Washington is now run by people who think they know how to run everything, when in reality they can barely run anything.

The point is that conservatives don't presume to be smart enough to run everything, because conservative dogma takes it as an article of faith that no one can be that smart.

Well, conservatives sure have amply demonstrated they can't run economies, wars, or to the bathroom without getting arrested, so their humility in this regard is welcome. I encourage them to extend this faith in their inherent incompetence to "not lying in asinine, disingenuous, and breathtakingly hypocritical op ed columns," but I'm not especially optimistic.