Andrew Weaver’s pathetic response to ClimateGate

Actually, make that "...Weaver’s predictably pathetic response ... ". Weaver* tries to cast himself and other "scientists" as victims. Now we have it that poor climate "researchers" like him and the CRU ClimateGate crew (Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others) are being "harassed" by dastardly climate skeptics:

... Like other scientists working in the climate-change field, Weaver says they face a well-orchestrated campaign of harassment by global-warming skeptics. ["Well-orchestrated" by skeptics on a budget that is infinitesimal compared with massively funded climate scaremongers like Weaver.]

... Weaver worries that climate-change deniers, many funded by large oil companies, are succeeding in scaring or confusing people. [That’s hilarious! Compared to the miniscule funding skeptics get (from any source), the AGW scaremongers’s coffers are awash in Big-Oil funding.]

Not only that but skeptics are nasty right-wingers:

Many skeptics are libertarians who do not want government interference in their lives, Weaver said. Others have vested interests in discouraging change. [True, but skeptics genuinely distrust the weak science and shrill propaganda behind claims of impending doom. And who in his right mind wants our governments to waste billions and trillions gambling on Weaver’s toy climate models.]

... the level of animosity is surprising, he agreed. [Hardly "surprising" - understandable and entirely predictable given the warm-mongers' treatment of "deniers".]

...Tom Pedersen, director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions at UVic, has monitored most of the climate-change-denial blogs and has found the common thread is an animosity toward government regulation. [Unlike Weaver and co. who apparently love the idea of global regulation and micro-management of our lives.]

If he had any real integrity or courage Weaver would, like his fellow climate alarmist George Monbiot, be condemning the actions of the CRU climate scammers, and not ridiculously playing victim. Oh, and by the way, Andrew, even the UK Met Office thinks the CRU's global temperature data analysis is hopelessly tainted (but who'd trust them to do the re-analysis?)

George Will of the Washington Post recently commented on a similarly pathetic response, in his own newspaper and elsewhere, to the ClimateGate travesty:

... The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer "consensus" and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

... Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

... The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

Update: Here's a companion story featuring Weaver in yesterday's Post; and a couple of letters (one, two) responding in today's Post.

*Andrew Weaver is Victoria’s and one of Canada’s top 'political' scientists who, when he’s not telling tall climate tales, he’s fiddling with climate models to generate fodder for yet more tall climate tales.