Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

The other day, when the news of "hacked" e-mails from a British climate institute hit the internet, I wrote Why The "Hacked E-Mails" Don't Interest Me, Yet.

In the post, I noted that I did not have the time to devote to the hacked e-mails because I was too busy monitoring Andrew Sullivan's attempt to uncover what was in Sarah Palin's uterus in early 2008. Apparently another failed attempt at humor, because some of my readers took the post as an indication I didn't think the hacked e-mail issue was important.

So here's my take as of this moment in time:

1. It is not clear that the e-mails were "hacked," but may have been "leaked" by someone with the alleged "hacking" story to cover the leaker's trail. How the e-mails were obtained could be significant as to veracity, authenticity, and most important, significance.
2. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the e-mails to argue their significance based on my own review. But a growing body of analysis on the blogs and even the mainstream media demonstrates -- at a minimum -- that the specific scientists authoring the e-mails have been less than honest with the public as to underlying data, methodology, and politics.
3. It is going to be a stretch, in all likelihood, to argue that the e-mails show a worldwide conspiracy to doctor the science. The science is subject to dispute on its own merits by other scientists, so you don't need a conspiracy theory to challenge it.
4. We should be insisting on an open debate, rather than allowing people like Al Gore to shut down debate by accusing scientists with opposing views of being flat-earth types. The e-mails should be used to demonstrate why open debate still is needed.
5. The e-mails reflect that we should not take at face value the highly politicized arguments of some man-made global warming theorists or politicians like Al Gore who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars from climate-change legislation.
6. The e-mails also demonstrate what we all have known to be true -- that left-wing academics hate people who disagree with them, and are willing to engage in de facto boycotts and intimidation in order to silence opposing opinions.

The "hacked" e-mails are significant, but it is too early to fully appreciate the full impact of the revelations. I hope bloggers keep digging and analyzing and disclosing.

Of course, the left will try to silence debate. That's what they do. My hope is that after a full analysis of the e-mails, and perhaps if some other brave souls leak information about politicized science, we can avoid disastrous economic policies like cap-and-trade resulting from global warming hysteria and political correctness.

If that is the case, here some other headlines which may go down in infamy, along with Dewey Defeats Truman, as having really bad timing, having been released on the eve of the e-mail disclosures:

• Climate Change Deniers' Smear Campaigns Exposed (James Boyce, HuffPo, November 19, 2009, 02:24 PM)(also at MyDD and Firedoglake)


• Will the GOP Nominate a Climate Change Denier in 2012? (Josh Nelson, HuffPo, November 18, 2009, 02:55 PM)


• Sen. Climate Change Denier endorses Fiorina (San Francisco Chronicle Politics Blog, November 18, 2009, 05:06 PM)


• Global Warming Deniers Beach Party poster (image).

The argument goes something like this: "Remember, the planet is depending on us. The Earth needs us. We only have four months to act, or it will be too late. Pass the stimulus health care cap-and-trade bill immediately or there will be catastrophe." The hacked e-mails burst this hysterical bubble, at a minimum.

Let's get it right, or our children will be swimming -- not in water -- but in economic ruin resulting from failed policies based on politicized science propagated by people with hidden agendas who stand to make fortunes off of our misery.

Update: The Milli Vanilli of Science: CRU Emails Unpeel the Warming Scam

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook