Shazam. Big Dumb Breitbart has gone ahead and created a Big Whole Shitload of Big Dumb Web-Sites, just as he Big Dumb Said He Would. And oh look, for his Big Dumb Journalism site, Big Dumb Breitbart has secured the services of a Big Dumb Hack, Big Dumb John Lott (and also, presumably for free -- or cheaper -- it seems he's also acquired a Little Dumb Anchovy vaguely associated with Big Dumb John Lott, hoo-ray).
For reference, as far as Big Dumb Hacks go, Big John Lott is quite the Big Dumb Hackiest. And in this regard his Big Dumb Journalism does not disappoint, as it's pretty fucking stupid.
The Climategate scandal – where leaked emails and computer programs involve dozens of prominent scientists worldwide – has almost everything one would want in a good scandal: conspiracies, fraud, possible destruction of documents, and lots of heated exchanges.
Hmm. What I personally would want in a good scandal is Hot Dirty Fucking. (I am "old-school" in this particular fashion.) And, uh, nope, there is none of that in "Climate-Gate."
More significantly, neither is there any suggestion of conspiracies or fraud. "Possible destruction of documents," well, maybe, but uh, probably not. Anyhow the point is, "Climate-Gate" has everything you might want in a scandal, except, you know, any fucking remote hint of an actual scandal. Which makes it kind of uninteresting except to loonies who want to believe otherwise -- and presumably to whoever is conducting the investigation of the hack, which remains the only overtly, blatantly illegal act in this whole stupid nonsensical episode.
But the media has been reluctant to look into the problems and even when the controversy has been acknowledged it has been quickly dismissed as unimportant.
Because it's a poopload of unimportant boring make-pretend slanderous nothing.
And here we are, finally arrived at the Big Stupid Complaint. Lettuce Prey.
Take an in-depth analysis of Climategate provided by the Associated Press. The piece appeared in hundreds of publications, with many newspapers carrying it on the front page of their Sunday December 13 edition under the headline, “Science not faked, but not pretty.” The five AP-reporters interviewed three scientists about the emails, and concluded: “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations,’” as the AP quoted Dr. Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AP had provided him a copy of the emails, without any other important documents.
The last sentence is fascinating. What the fuck else was the AP supposed to provide him? Is the man too mentally deficient to go look at the published work of the scientists involved and see if their fucking references and methodologies stink or else smell like daisies?
Christ. Here is a Secret. Private emails don't fucking matter. Only published research matters. The only way a scientist can commit scientific fraud is in the literature they publish about science. So, to prove a scientist has committed fraud, you need to (1) Quote what they said in a professional publication; (2) Prove they are wrong; (3) Prove they intended to deceive and didn't just make a whoopsie.