Climategate

I see that Climategate is starting to get some traction in the mainstream press, though the New York Times, in a sudden burst of "ethics" says it won't have anything to do with improperly obtained documents. While the Warming camp may be dismayed that the public is learning that environmentalists aren't all that honest and their pet scientists are proving as susceptible to the blandishments of politics as mere mortals, at least they can take comfort that The One will Save the Planet^TM.

Update: Lord Monckton pulls no punches and calls the Warming scientists "criminals" and "fraudsters".

Update: Apparently, climate "scientists" aren't the only ones economical with the truth.

Update: Climategate causes caused George Monbiot to issue an apology. And the mountain has come to Mohammed.

Update: A story so important that the BBC let it sit on the spike for a month. Meanwhile, Richard Black, who the CRU e-mails reveals as a useful idiot, is still cranking out the scare stories. But then, so is the BBC in general as in this story that is 100 percent skepticism free. And they keep digging and digging. It's like the villain in a Scooby Doo episode insisting on shouting "WOOOOO!" after the mask comes off.

Update: Phil Jones: Fall guy?

Update: CRU to Earth:

So the very climate scientists who keep saying that global warming will be an unparalleled disaster for humanity are telling the Earth: Heat up, damn it!

Update: A summary of the story so far.

Update: Homer Simpson is aware of the situation–and, even less likely, Tom Flannery.

Update: The BBC leaps to examine Climategate and comes up with a 28 paragraph hand-patting of the poor victims at the CRU who are so cruelly put upon. All that ink spilled and not a single word for the sceptic's case. The BBC: no stone left unturned unless it doesn't fit the narrative.

Update: Petition!

Update: I remember when Scientific American under its great editor Dennis Flanagan was the flagship popular science magazine. I had a collection of back issues dating to the early '50s and regarded it as a godsend when I realised that I'd never be able to keep up with all the journal publications. I couldn't read them all, but at least SA could be relied on to give me an objective digest of what was going on. Now? Just another left-wing rag with an axe to grind.

Update: Long post, but well worth the time.