Media Hacks interpret CRU email hacks.

“a prophetic madman is at least amusing; a superannuated fuddy-duddy is merely pitiful”
-Stephen Jay Gould.

Around the time of my conception, some 30 (-ish ) years ago, a theory regarding the mechanics of continental drift was coming into its own. The physical dynamics of the earth’s crust was being set out in a new paradigm, known today as Plate Tectonics. A mere decade earlier, the proponents of the then controversial new theory were being robustly laughed out of lecture halls the world over, some even found themselves being labelled as ‘mentals’ (probably). Prior to the mechanics of the process becoming a scientifically accepted fact, the idea of continental drift was roundly rejected by the scientific overlords of the day for being patently absurd. Nowadays it is received wisdom, and goes without question. Now we know better.

On then to the present day, and the recent fire-in-a-fart-jar guff-storm, that has eddied and intensified around a handful of agenda-pushing hacks in both the national and international media. It appears that compelling new evidence has been ‘unearthed’, coincidentally right before the eco mind-meld of the Copenhagen climate talks has had time to brainwash the world’s political leaders, and just in time to foil a global conspiracy among the world’s scientific community, who blatantly want to team up with Gordon Brown and Barack Obama in order to form an irrepressible universal authority, through which they can foist their evil communist ways upon the unwitting masses, made docile by a shortage of will-fortifying petrol fumes, and then strip them of their cars, foreign holidays, central heating systems, and shoes, before forcing them AND their children to eke out a pitiful existence making ornate hand carvings from polar bear poo and soy beans. Grrr. At least that’s the impression you may have been left with if you are A: as thick as a sea-lion sandwich, B: a regular reader of The Daily Fail/Torygraph, or watcher of Fox News, or, C: a somewhat tautological combination of the above.

I don’t really want to wade into the quagmire of opinion surrounding the validity, or otherwise, of anthropogenic climate change, to be honest I can't believe it's still regarded as a debatable issue. Except to say that what I’ve seen of the stolen information adds nothing to the debate. There are certainly some unsavoury opinions expressed that don’t reflect well on the individuals expressing them, but as they were never meant for public consumption what difference does it make? None to the science, that’s for sure.

That hasn’t stopped the likes of the Telegraph’s James Delingpole, an obsequious right-wing establishment toady; and three times divorced American Shock-Jock and self appointed guardian of morality, Rush Limbaugh, among others, from all but soiling themselves in their haste to declare a victory for the ‘skeptics’ over the publication of private emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In response to the sorry saga Rush Limbaugh has been quoted as saying: “I've instinctively known this from the get-go, from 20 years ago! The whole thing is made up, and the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it! When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus.”

Well whoop-de doo to you and your instinctive knowledge, Rush, you bastion of reason, you font of wisdom, you. There's a clear lesson to us all here, as the instincts of a rabidly right-wing militant republican talk radio host, who spends his waking life shitting boiling venom on anything and everything good and decent in the world, largely for the benefit of like-minded yee-haw redneck types, who never let facts get in the way of forming a livid opinion on anything, shows. Obviously such instinctively gleaned knowledge automatically trumps the findings of rigorous scientific method applied to data collected and collated by an international community of highly respected, independent experts of climatology and meteorology. Yeah, you go, girl!

Really though, the notion that scientists from institutions such as CRU, the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3), The National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) have colluded to deceive the world by collecting analogous data, then falsifying conclusions to reach a broad consensus, is beyond satire. And if anybody doubts there is a consensus, then they should take the issue up with The Royal Society.

There have already been calls, from both sides of the debate, for the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones to resign over the emails. Even eco-champion George Monbiot has started to bang his drum to this effect, on the grounds that it all “could’ve been handled better”. Wouldn’t that set a marvellous precedent? After giving a “no comment” comment to the press (a de facto admission of guilt, apparently) this valued scientist should be forced to lose his professional position over a handful of cherry-picked, out of context quotes stolen from private departmental emails, from a period spanning over a decade, should he? Settle down, George. Don’t expect members of the scientific community, unaccustomed to the spotlight, to win much ground in a PR battle against the sort of media-savvy arse wipes so intent on destroying the credibility of what-or-whoever they take exception to. A statement explaining the emails’ contents has been issued by the university; anything further to that just diverts energy and focus away from the important stuff. Let the science speak for itself.