Hilarious equivocation

'I am thoroughly unimpressed with the belief that global warming scientists have been engaging in some kind of massive conspiracy to conceal the truth. First, because we seem to be able to observe things like polar ice sheets melting, which point to warming. And second, because, well, why the hell would they?'

'...There are other issues: selection bias in the grant process, papers with large results being much more likely to be published than papers with equivocal results, professors preferring students who agree with them, and so forth. I doubt that could amount to faking the entire thing. But it could amplify the magnitude.'

'More than one blog is saying this proves that some of the data was falsified. I think that's too strong. But it does look like maybe they got a little too aggressive massaging it.

Is this an anomaly? I hope it is, and think it probably is. But I worry that it isn't.'

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/climategate_was_data_faked.php

So, what is it? Thoroughly unimpressed with the silly sceptics, or becoming a silly sceptic yourself?

I think of this as the Monbiot eqivocation. Deep in his heart, George Monbiot is too honest and ethical to deny what the evidence is telling him, but he has spent so many years spieling the gospel that he can't completely break away from it. Listen to your heart, George! Listen to your heart, Megan! Go towards the light!