Religião do clima: 10 mandamentos

Enquanto a nossa garbosa Ministra das coisas verdes e giras, Assunção Cristas, vai a Durban participar num festim de palhaços, aqui ficam os 10 mandamentos para escapatória de trafulha apanhado em flagrante:

1. “The emails are old” - (No one has seen them before, and what makes two-year-old lies acceptable now?).
2. “The timing is suspicious” - (Alarmists release alarming stuff all the time in the lead up to big meetings, but look out, it’s suspicious when a skeptic releases alarming stuff about those scientists at the same time!)
3. “They’re out of context” - (We won’t explain the context, or quote the email, trust us, they just are, OK?)
4. “The emails show a robust scientific debate” - (But that is the whole point isn’t it? We were told the “science was settled”? It is dishonest to discuss uncertainties in private while you tell the public “the debate is over” and call anyone who questions that a “denier”.)
5. “They’ve been investigated” - (Even though the investigations didn’t have these emails, didn’t investigate the science, and were at least in one case, chaired by a windfarm expert, this point is supposed to have credibility?)
6. “They’re hacked” or “stolen” - (After years of investigation there is no evidence they were hacked. They could have been leaked. Police can’t or won’t say. Does this journalist “know” something the police don’t?)
7. “Aren’t the skeptics nasty people?” - (Crikey, imagine reading emails written by paid public servants on the job about their professional work? What victims! Those poor scientists can’t even threaten journal editors, conspire to ignore peer reviewed papers they don’t like, or discuss their ignorance in private… what’s the world coming too?)
8. “This doesn’t change the science” - (Since most of “the science” is merely a consensus of these same experts, whom we are told to respect, then actually it does change “the science” when they are caught cheating.)
9. The emails “mean nothing” according the scientists caught cheating - (The sock puppet earns bonus points if those same scientists also get to slur the whistleblower and skeptics with unsubstantiated implications that “they are funded by fossil fuels”.)
10. The public response is a “yawn” - (And given how few journalists are reporting the actual emails to the public, that’s entirely predictable eh? Circular reasoning strikes again.)