Never mind. that was a rhetorical question. I already know that “investigative journalism” is an oxymoron these days.

Are these AGW frausters and scaremongers really to be exposed? We rational folk do seem to have the momentum all of a sudden. How delightful to read the ringing words of people posting above:

ianl8888: “This IS history, happening as we watch. I find it utterly fascinating … never thought I would live long enough to witness such a thing.”

Lucy Skywalker: “Gabi Hegerl is obsessed, like Lady Macbeth, that she has to wash her hands clean. She’s complicit… ”

Barclay E McDonald: “May the person(s) who organized and executed the email leak sleep well.”

Stirring stuff! Although it is in the nature of Science that false hypotheses must ultimately collapse, there has always been a danger that some bent practitioners of science (who are after all no more immune to greed and vanity than the wider population) would pervert their noble profession for an extended period. Here, I see a resemblance to 1950s USA where one charismatic and determined maniac (Sr. McCarthy) browbeat thousands of good citizens into believing there were reds under the bed. His poison eventually dissipated, but it took many years and great damage to the careers of many an honest and liberal person. I hope that the paranoia created by the Church of Gore will soon dissipate, and the whole rotten edifice of AGW come tumbling down. But I fear that there are so many bent scientists and politicians and commodities traders with a vested interest in perpetuating this scam that it may take many years to consign this neoapocalyptic hysteria to the dustbin of history.

May our grandchildren smirk and say, “Grandad, did your generation REALLY believe that the polecaps would melt, the seas rise, that the end of the world was coming soon? How very silly you all were!”

Why should this be? There is an election shortly in the UK and Labour needs funds to fight the election. As of now, wealthy political donors have a vested interest in the profits that will devolve from carbon capture, so that must remain the objective, regardless of the ruffled feathers of a few academics and their concern for “the truth”.

The argument will drone on in the blogosphere for another few months but unfortunately politics is about politically-funded organisation, not public opinion, no matter how effectively corralled it may seem on the internet.