International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


Judicial Watch watch

[cite as: S. Stepanovich. Judicial Watch watch. Intl. J. Inact., 3:3]

Hi, I’m Stepan Stepanovich, the new Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Inactivism. Rumour has it that I’m actually the alter ego of former Editor-in-Chief Frank Bi, and I’m also related to Steve Steve, but I can assure you that the jury’s still out on these questions. Anyway…

* * *

Via the inactivist blog Watts Up With That?, I came across a group of people who call themselves Judicial Watch. [1, 2] Their self-description on the particular press release linked from WUWT [cached] — which, incidentally, is written in the third person — says Judicial Watch is “the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption”, although from the group web site’s front page it seems what they’re worried about most is, well,


Oh, and what do they say on the legality of cracking into the e-mails of researchers of a public university? [cached] Not much:

Documents uncovered by a computer hacker reveal that researchers studying climate change may have manipulated their data.

So do they think the relevant governments should identify, arrest, and prosecute this “computer hacker” via due process? Are they going to ensure that governments work on arresting the culprits responsible? If they are, what’s the big reason they’re not saying so?

(Their ‘analysis’ of the NASA e-mails released under the Freedom of Information Act is also nonsense: they note that the NASA temperature correction only affects temperature data from year 2000 on, then suddenly assert that this somehow affects the 1998 temperature measurement.)



  1. Scaife’s at it again. The sharks must be disappointed with their fishing hunt this time, though.

    Comment by hidden — 2010/01/18 @ 07:39 | Reply

    • What are they going to do next, I wonder… issue an FOIA request for all the thermometers in the US?

      Comment by stepanovich — 2010/01/19 @ 15:14 | Reply

  2. Google Monica Lewinski Judicial Watch

    Comment by Eli Rabett — 2010/01/21 @ 03:08 | Reply

    • “[…]when the people will have no confidence that serious criminal conduct by high executive branch officials will be effectively and objectively investigated and prosecuted.” These seem ironic statements coming from a man who a few years later disapproved of the Lewinsky Scandal’s investigation and Clinton’s impeachment trial.

      Wow, so an extramarital affair is “serious criminal conduct” just like Watergate and the CRU crack. Oh, and illegal aliens. These guys certainly have their priorities straight…

      Comment by stepanovich — 2010/01/22 @ 19:40 | Reply

  3. Regarding the corrections made to Giss temperatures, it’s actually a funny story b/c although in the emails they say over and over 2000 on, what was actually changed was everything before 2000. Not that it matters much.

    Comment by Jeff Id — 2010/01/31 @ 10:23 | Reply

    • Source of your claim? Specific page numbers?

      Comment by stepanovich — 2010/01/31 @ 13:25 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: