If ever there were two items fairly capturing much of the theme of Red Hot Lies – cruising up the charts nicely here in its first few days off the press, thanks to all – these are the two.
First, establishment scientists attack heretics, then refuse to release the data they claim supports their alleged debunking of what, in this case, increasingly appears to be a fatal flaw in the alarmist thesis: the alleged “fingerprint” of greenhouse warming continues to not exist.
As I detail in RHL, the global warming industry have a long and unhappy history of making claims they apparently cannot back up and, when challenged, clinging to their data like grim death, claiming it was lost, apparently fabricating data, having journals publish helpful conclusions without ever asking to see the numbers, and so on. When the data are released, things don’t end well for the alarmists – as the Hockey Team’s original and now latest flailing bears out.
Second, Australia’s ABC news nicely embodies the media’s now ritual double standard of selective curiosity and umbrage in their efforts to dismiss those who refuse to accept the faith, and elevate those who have found salvation. As Andrew Bolt writes, the ABC reporter “rings the leper’s bell” in introducing a mere professor for his sin of being a skeptic, while spinning alarmists into authorities to whom all must defer.
This shows once again what I explore with example after example in RHL: climate scientists know where the path of least resistance lies; and, conversely, they have seen the excommunication that awaits if they dare to follow the research rather than the research dollars. The same reality holds true for politicians. Should one choose to infer relative legitimacy of the various positions from those facts, so be it.