If someone talks about WikiLeaks and admires transparency and accountability but talks about ClimateGate and talks about how the emails were illegally obtained and stresses the researchers were absolved of science misconduct, you know how they vote.
And one other catchphrase claims to be a sign for the political leaning of the latest ClimateGate email provider: “Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes," a note stated when it released more emails related to ClimateGate. That means denier, says Greenpeace. Bonus: If true, then in defiance of spin by progressives, it also would seem people on the right are smart enough to use a computer.
Well, Greenpeace is a denier about plenty of science. Sure, they say you should accept the science of climate change but then they say you should be a denier about almost everything else, like using science to create food that grows in terrible climates, where the world's poorest people live and starve. Science is out to save us when it comes to global warming but out to kill us when it comes to food or nuclear power, according to Greenpeace.
What did the new emails show? Not much. The investigations already cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct (well, what they were cleared of were claims they "inappropriately manipulated data") and there was nothing really new in that regard, unless you are interesting in quote-mining their emails the way Greenpeace does to everyone else; instead, the new emails showed the climate researchers in question are not immune from being assholes. That's not scientific misconduct, any more than Frankenstein-ing together graphs to make a point more obvious is. The dummies in science journalism took that hockey stick graph and ran with it a decade ago (though later, plenty of scientists rationalized it) and science journalism has clearly paid that price - corporate media recognized that scientists and bloggers are better suited to providing context for complex science issues than journalists and science journalism has been gutted in that time; evolution has won there and only the fit and the lucky have survived. Basically, without science journalism losing its mind and becoming cheerleaders and advocates, actual science sites like Science 2.0 would not exist so good things come from bad things on occasion.
Back to this 'help poor people' right-wing nonsense Greenpeace did not like. The verbage was "a strong clue on the predisposition of the hacker. It smells a lot like a certain quadrant of the denier community. They pretend to be concerned that we are impeding development in poor countries. Only certain think tanks think that way and play that way,” Greenpeace research director Kent Davies told the New York Times. Mostly in Europe, he said.
So only European global warming deniers believe the billions spent on climate change 'awareness' (really, who is not aware of climate change by now? Only the starving poor people in countries where Greenpeace says genetically modified food should not be grown, that's who) could better be spent on helping poor people most likely to be impacted by climate change right now. Okay, if Greenpeace says it, it must be true.
Are we any closer to finding out who released those emails? The most common theory was that it was actually someone from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit - an inside job by someone troubled at the efforts by CRU researchers to block opposing research. Former employees likened the atmosphere there to a global warming cult and an inside job by someone so far on the left they actually care about freedom might be even harder for Greenpeace to believe than that right wing people learned how to use a computer.
Michael Mann of Penn State University reaffirmed his faith in a benevolent police state when discussing the raids occurred and that laptops were confiscated despite the fact that the owners were not suspects and no charges were filed against them, the hacker simply left a comment on their denier websites; “It seems to me the authorities wouldn’t have acted without some actionable intelligence.”
'If you don't want your property stolen, don't disagree with us', is in violation of both liberalism and conservativism in America but perhaps in England there is a third mindset where that is acceptable. In the meantime, the mischievous student likely behind this whole thing is laughing.
A Clue In The Identity Of The ClimateGate Email Hacker?