As a side note, can we stop calling scandal by a name that ends in gate? It sounds almost as moronic as Garland Robinette (a local talk radio host) calling the parties the "Demi-dont's" and "Republicant's". This is the kind of high criticism leveled by three year olds.
In any case, when Climategate first errupted onto the scene in the U.K., and trickled out through FOX News and the internet in the U.S., it was noted that some of the e-mails leaked were exchanges between the climate "scientists" and a reporter with the New York Times. The Times refused to publish the contents of the e-mails claiming, in part, that they were not written with the intention of being disclosed to the public. This is the same New York Times that published information on how the Bush Administration was attempting to track terrorism through a perfectly legal program. They also didn't seem to have much of a problem disclosing the Pentagon Papers.
Now it has come to light that prior to the general leak of the e-mails, the BBC had received copies months in advance and had simply sat on them. I have continued to search the mainstream media for mentions of the story in the United States and have yet to find anyone but FOX running any stories of significance, and they often paint the leaks in a far more negative light than the corrupt scientists. This shows the media is in bed with the liberal policy ideas behind global warming. I have trouble thinking of any other logical conclusion.
Another issue this raises that has far more interesting potential consequences in the long run is that, if the e-mails were released prior to the break in the story that occurred this month, it seems logical that it was someone on the inside, not a hacker, that released the information. If that is the case, then there would likely be no legal issue about how the information was obtained and there is potentially someone who can speak directly to the practices of this politicized research.
No comments:
Post a Comment