I just wouldn\’t use this logic myself

Some more of the emails stolen from the Climate Research Centre in 2009 have been released. This time they are accompanied by a readme with out-of-context quotes that asserts the purpose of the release is information transparency, but that\’s an obvious lie, since they\’ve sat on them for two years and released them just before Durban conference. The timing suggests that the people behind the theft and release have a financial interest in preventing mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Release of information just before a conference means people have a financial interest in the outcome of that conference?

Well, blow me!

So every Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid, Action Aid, Debby Doane\’s World Development Movement and the entire alphabet soup of TJN, TUC, RHT etc, we can simply reject any and every one of their reports that come out just before a conference because they are obviously being released with the intention of swaying the outcome of said conference because they\’ve a financial interest in said outcome?

Well, if you say so Tim.

Myself, I wouldn\’t actually try to use that particular piece of logic. Oh, sure, it might actually be correct, but I think you\’ll find your fellow campaigners would be a little unhappy with the implications of it.

14 thoughts on “I just wouldn\’t use this logic myself”

  1. Pot/Kettle??

    Have these people no imagination. Are we all just greedy people who do stuff we believe in because there is money in it for us?

    Lordy, just before they start tracking me down, I had nothing to do with the emails

  2. “Are we all just greedy people who do stuff we believe in because there is money in it for us?”

    Well, since that’s how they behave, why should it occur to them that there are any other reasons?

  3. But, but, but …

    Remember, they’re all in it for the good of the world whereas we are all evil imperialist warmongering denialists.

    They’re committed believers in whatever it happens to be this week whereas we despicably demand evidence rather than random assertion.

    And ‘proper’ charities don’t actually pay people to produce bollocks, so they can’t be in it for the money. Unlike us who would clearly sell our* grannies into slavery for an extra penny or two.

    * Obviously not me, of course, both of mine being dead.

  4. It’s this malign view of others which gives a psychological excuse for bad behaviour. We see this in all forms of crime and corruption.

  5. Well, in my hollowed-out volcano, I am always open to offers about releasing reports before big conferences.

    Okay, I have some more dastardly plots to create.

  6. I have a financial interest in Global Warming Hysteria being true – or, more accurately, in its being widely accepted that it’s true. But I am entirely sceptical about it myself. I suppose that to the hysterics I must be a riddle wrapped in an enigma…….

  7. This is a very old garment, but it still seems to fit:

    When the law is on your side, pound the law.

    When the facts are on your side pound the facts.

    When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Personally I like his last bit – “Gavin Schmidt is providing context for the emails, Brendan DeMelle has an extensive roundup and Stephan Lewandowsky writes about the real scandal.”

    So Gavni Schmidt does his usually spinning job. Not very well mind you. DeMelle shows how many people are leaping to their defence. And Lewandowsky screws up what ought to be a perfectly simple “Move on, nothing to see here” piece by going hysterical and accusing the real scientists here of McCarthyism.

    Frankly, to see people admit what we all know -the models are rubbish for instance – is strangely fascinating. But too late for all concerned because Man-made Global Warming is dead as a viable Scare. No one in their right mind believes it any more.

    As usual the Reg is one of the few papers to come off with any credibility:


    “So the mewling infant that we call Climate Science – a 40-year-young offshoot of meteorology – has been thrust into a political role long before it’s capable of supporting the claims made on its behalf. From the archives we can see the scientists know that too, and we can read their own reluctance to make those claims, too.”

  9. Over here the term would be “Well, blow me down”. But my guess is you knew that, and your output wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining if you coloured in the lines.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *