But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.
I think it has been rigged from the start.
From Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, to Rachael Carson's Silent Spring, to the great AGW hoax, too many people have had vested interests, both spiritual and financial, in keeping the cons going.
The integrity of the scientific method has taken a terrible drubbing of late. Those that felt it was alright to lie a little bit for the good of the cause have made a farce of science.
Which relates directly to the problem of the Discovery Institute's abuse science.
Every time that we hear someone bitch about the Discovery Institute's abuse of the scientific method, we need to suggest that they take a look at the tree in their own eye before they fuss about the splinter in another's. You can't rebuke the one group without also rebuking the other. It is hypocrisy to even try. They both do the same thing for the equivalent of the same reason; "The Good of the Cause."
The Discovery Institute would be the ignorable laughing stock it deserves to be if it were not for the AGW crowd validating fraudulent science for the good of the cause.