You Know What Looks Much Worse Than Climategate Itself?

This. An excerpt:

"It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites."

It is fair to assume, I think, that this situation is roughly parallel to Republican newspapers refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Watergate story. It doesn't necessarily mean that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not real. But it does meant that whether it is real or not, some very powerful forces in the world are biased and trying their best to manipulate public debate in any case.

I'm finding myself becoming more and more convinced that something is very fishy here. The front page of The Toronto Star features the headline: "Star Joins Global Climate Crusade." I thought the term "crusade" was politically incorrect. Does this mean the Star is threatening skeptics, or maybe the oil industry, with violence? (The Political Correctness Game can be played for fun sometimes!)

But, seriously, how could anything so unanimously agreed upon be so fragile? How could something that is pure science be desperately peddled as a "belief"?

Here are some important questions to ask about AGW:

1. Your friends reveal something of your character. Who is pushing this agenda?
2. Follow the money. Who stands to get rich if the agenda is successful?
3. Alinsky Tactics. Why is no distinction made between those who question the idea that the globe is warming and those who merely question whether or not we are certain that human activity, rather than periodic climate fluctuations, is the reason?
4. Ideology Alert. Why does the proposed "solution" to a problem that may or may not be real involve a massive transfer of wealth from first world countries to third world countries and the vesting of wide powers in the hands of unelected, UN bureaucrats who represent a stridently leftist ideological bent?
5. Ideology Alert II. Would the advocates of the transfer of wealth from the West, the rise in power of unelected UN bureaucrats and the implementation of Marxist ideas still want this agenda implemented even if AGW were proven to be a myth tomorrow?

Answer these questions and then ask yourself if this whole thing is worth a second look.