But what the hell. It was fun while it lasted. The rest of the article is recommended reading for those of us who are still convinced that there is a vast conspiracy of researchers who will *somehow* profit from it."However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This lead to some truly death-defying leaping to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the 'Opinionator' at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having 'always puzzled about some gaps' (what?) , declared the the error had 'played havoc' with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the 'astounding' numbers had been 'silently released'. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.
Submission Summary: 0 pending, 13 declined, 1 accepted (14 total, 7.14% accepted)
And the The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science:
I thought that I had submitted the story from the AAAS meeting where the UCS went ape-shit over the presidential FDA appointee's asinine behavior after the Feb 2006 meeting in St Louis. As in "OMG it's an abortion pill!"
The fact is that the administration goes after anybody it disagrees with hammer and tongs. The only parallel I can think of is Tricky Dick's enemies list. Friends of the admin. include the ID jerks, the Exxon-paid anti-global warming crowd, the abstinence only crowd, and the poke-education-with-a-sharp-stick-to-see-what-hap