Rather than run a story and some analysis of the information contained in the emails and what impact that information might have on the global warming debate, the Globe chooses to stay on message tonight and run a front page piece on Boston.com trumpeting the future inundation of the City of Boston by rising sea level as a result of you guessed it, global warming!
The report produced by the "World Wildlife Fund and insurer Allianz warns that sea levels could rise along the U.S. coast a whopping 26 inches by 2050 as the world warms. That would place assets worth 7.4 trillion dollars at risk along the U.S. coast."
Rather than speculate on events 40 years from now how about taking look at events unfolding right under their noses? If the reports of the contents of these emails are true, global warming skeptics will have a field day in mocking the essence of the global warming model.
Don't get to excited about your property in Burlington soon becoming ocean front.
According to reports of the content of some of these emails, it seems as though some of the data being used by the IPCC (International Panel of Climate Change) may have been falsified or manipulated in order to achieve the result that the scientists needed to advance their AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory. If that is the case then the entire IPCC gloomy global warming forecast would now be under a cloud of suspicion.
If one statistic or measurement were called into question it might not be a problem but it appears as though there is a constant theme running through these emails and communications that exposes the scientists as politicians trying to make a case for legislation (and perhaps green business) rather than unbiased members of the scientific academy prepared to have their theories suffer through rigorous peer review.
Since this issue has enormous geo-political and economic consequences, all the data supporting the pro climate change position ought to be available to anyone with an opposing point of view and skeptics with legitimate criticism should be encouraged to air their data.
That does not seem to be the message being conveyed in these emails by the major figures and proponents of the AGW theory. Requests for data are being stonewalled and people and journals that seek to challenge conventional wisdom are being shunned or marginalized.
With the Copenhagen meetings coming up and with cap and trade legislation on the table in Washington, this issue should be taking a front page position in the main stream media.
If the Globe continues to ignore this controversy, it would be one more example of the degradation of the Globe as a journalistic institution and another nail in its coffin as an ongoing business enterprise.
