Just a few quickies........

• According to the Heritage Foundation, the organizers for the Copenhagen registered 45,000 participants to attend a conference in a building that can hold 15,000!  As anecdotal evidence that God does indeed have a sense of humor, thousands of participants and media covering the event have been unable to get into the facility and have been stuck outside in freezing temperatures.......at a conference about Global Warming
• According to NewsBusters.org, the AP had eleven "fact-checkers" reviewing Sarah Palins book, Going Rogue.  They only assigned five for research into the emails at the center of the "ClimateGate" scandal that is embroiling Copenhagen.  Obviously, it is much more important to focus resources on research of a book written by an average American citizen who can only comment on policy than on an international body at the center of a potential global scandal and fraud that could have bilked billions from the planet's industrialized nations over the past 4 decades.  By the way, how many fact-checkers were assigned for The Audacity of Hope?
• Since there cannot be fanatical enviro-alarmism without former Vice President Al Gore wading into the quagmire, he was caught again in the throes of hyperbole as he quoted a climate change scientist in warning that there was a "75% chance of the entire polar icecap melting by 2014".  Citing the information as "fresh" and that he had just gotten them "yesterday", he referenced this as further evidence of the need for quick action and response from leaders in attendance.  Unfortunately for Gore, the scientist, Dr Wieslav Maslowski, apparently never made that claim.  Apparently, his findings would support no such exact estimate.  Later, Gore's office claimed that the 75% figure was used by him as a "ballpark estimate" in a conversation several YEARS ago.  As a politician, Gore appears to be merging and melding conversations to promote his policy agenda in a similar fashion to what many of the quasi-scientists at the heart of this scandal have been manipulating and manufacturing the scientific data currently in question.  It may not be "Inconvenient", but at least they appear "Consistent"!

 
Truth, History, and Common Sense refute Liberalism.  Lies, Revisionism, and Mispresentations are its shield.

It sounds as if Senate Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is indeed open to hearings on the recently-released emails that raise questions about the accuracy and validity of the "science" surrounding climate change. Unfortunately, it would seem that she is less interested in the the issue that this information raises (namely: the highlight that some research and claims about climate change could be questionable, it not outright fraudlent and manufactured) and more interested in threatening criminal investigation into the allegations that the information -might- have been obtained via hacking.

This from thehill.com.

Query.....Is it more likely that these emails and other documents might have come from a whistleblower inside one of the organizations (who would have had more knowledge and legitimate access to much of this information and known where to gather it) or that a hacker infiltrated multiple targets and successfully searched / organized it? Also, if it is the latter, I would hope that that good Senator remembers that whistleblowing (in events of fraud or misappropriation / misuse of government funds, which finances much of this "research) is a legally protected activity; protection afforded by the very legislation bodies of which she is a member!

Query 2.....Even if one assumes that hacking did obtain the information (which has not been proven), which is a bigger problem (1) the global scientific community that is financially & politically intertwined with these claims of climate change (which may be overstated or overhyped or outright fraud) OR (2) some of the core members of this community have been knowingly misrepresenting and misleading to perpetuate their own financial and political benefit?

Interestingly, President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren wrote one of the emails in question when he worked for Harvard University (in 2003). Thankfully, he was available to give testimony on Capitol Hill today to clarify that even if the data indeed doesn't support their hypothesis, that doesn't mean that climate change is not a problem. Even if -apparently- he can't deliver reproduceable results from research that would back up his claim.

I suppose we will just have to accept "Well, it is because it is" as "evidence".