Eugene Robinson's Hot Air

Eugene Robinson's article at Real Clear Politics is long on spin and short on facts. Let's pick it apart:

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

We "climate change deniers" are not saying that global warming is a fraud, we are saying the junk science used to purvey it is the cause and the fraud, so I guess, in a sense, global warming is man made considering that the emails prove that Michael Mann, et al tried to hide the decline and it's not just the emails, it's the code that is damning. Incidentally, Mr. Robinson which is it, climate change or global warming?

If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting.

Really? Real science says that it's cyclical and currently they are building up in some places and decreasing in others.

That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real -- a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there's much about the climate they still don't know.

More mindless "consensus" claptrap. Of course climate change is real, it's been going on for 4.5 billion years and throwing money at a non existent phenomenon isn't going to 'fix' anything, but it will destroy the economy if this preposterous cap and tax bill gets passed and signed into law fast. As for "scientific consensus", there is no such thing. Let me repeat that: there is no such thing. When are you climate change alarmists going to realize that? But, if you want to play the consensus game, may a I direct your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project?

Here's what happened: Someone hacked into the servers at one of the leading academic centers in the field -- the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England -- and filched a trove of e-mails and documents, which have been posted on numerous Web sites maintained by climate skeptics.

Nobody hacked into anything, Mr. Robinson. If that were the case, then why hasn't an official investigation been started yet? Those emails go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not? This isn't the first time data has been leaked by Hadley CRU, ask Stephen Mcyntire at Climate Audit. Then there is the timing of this event. Since the Copenhagan climate conference is looming, don't you think it's a bit odd that these emails were leaked?

Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, released a statement Wednesday saying, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well." That would be an example of British understatement.

"Don't read well"? That's beyond any understatement, considering that violence was suggested by one "scientist".

In one message sent to a long list of colleagues, Jones speaks of having completed a "trick" with recent temperature data to "hide the decline." The word "trick" is hardly a smoking gun -- scientists use it to refer to clever but perfectly legitimate ways of handling data. But the "hide the decline" part refers to a real issue among climate researchers called the "divergence problem."

Ah, yes it is Mr. Robinson and here's where you climate change alarmists are missing the entire point. The code (IDL) clearly shows that the data was altered involving data manipulation going back to the 60's to make it look as if there was a warming trend.

The rest of Mr. Robinson's article is more claptrap and apologist rhetoric that is always vomited by those who venerate anyone that creates a feel good campaign. These scientists are the epitome of why PHD means Piled High and Deep and should have their credentials revoked, because this is clearly academic fraud.