Now that the authorities have confiscated the computers of a few contrarian bloggers to see whether they can find evidence of who hacked the University of East Anglia's e-mail servers, Lord Monckton is incensed! INCENSED, I tell you! He says he's going to go after the climate scientists whose e-mails were stolen and have them prosecuted for fraud. Why him? Because the bumbling police don't know much about climatology, so they need help to understand the "fraud".
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I've decided to update this blog entry (20 Dec 2011) because it occurs to me that certain things could be misinterpreted, in no small part because of the common language that separates us across various national borders, and differences in the way debate and concepts of free speech operate in…
I know we're just hours away from the nail-biting climax of the Copenhagen conference at which the fate of humanity hangs in the balance (or not), but a Daily Kos post explaining why efforts to reform health insurance in the U.S. have amounted to nothing has fallen into my "must read" category. One…
There has been much ado about the hundreds of pages of stolen e-mails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia. The reality of course is that this is about creating a wedge by those who are opposed to the regulations necessary to circumvent climate change and is not about the…
Leslie Kaufman in the New York Times presents a disturbing tale of attempts by creationists to up their chances of slipping religion into science classrooms by piggy-backing it onto "balanced" instruction of climatology.
The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts…
So they're bringing back the Pink Panther movies and giving Inspector Cluseau a new partner, are they? Big fan, can't wait to see it. I guess they must be putting Peter Sellars in with CGI. But who's gonna play Inspector Monckton? Let me guess: Sasha Baron-Cohen? Just a wild guess.
An obvious fraud claims to be able to help investigate an alleged, but non-existent, fraud?