International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)


“Decoding SwiftHack”, the successor blog

Filed under: Climatic Research Unit crack,from the Editor-in-Chief — stepanovich @ 16:24

The “Climategate” story
Told in all its glory
Of scientists’ conspiracy
To roast our democracy

But ask the tellers, ‘Proved it?’
And they say ‘We moved it’
While journos strive for on-site
A substitute for insight

Important note: This blog has now been supplanted by the Decoding SwiftHack blog. Check it out!


“UEA broke FoI law” — but the real question is, what will the Heartland Institute say?

[cite as: S. Stepanovich. 2010. “UEA broke FoI law” — but the real question is, what will the Heartland Institute say? Intl. J. Inact., 3:5]

This just in:

The [Climatic Research Unit of the] University of East Anglia broke the law by refusing to release data requested under the Freedom of Information Act by climate-change sceptics, a watchdog has ruled.

However, the laws were flouted too long ago to make prosecution possible in the case, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said.

Now, the climate inactivist group that is Heartland Institute hasn’t yet covered this story, but if they do, I imagine it’ll look something like this:

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled that CRU broke the law by hiding data relating to climate change. This is a very serious crime indeed, and it very clearly confirms the existence of a nefarious conspiracy behind the global warming scare, fueled by radical Marxist elements such as Richard Stallman.

Strangely, the ICO announcement was timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Is this a coincidence, or was the ICO pressured by global warming believers into trying to downplay the impact of their revelation?

Despite whatever pressures the ICO might have been facing, as a foot soldier in the great war for freedom, I find it refreshing that a government agency can still speak with such candor on the existence of the global warming fraud. In this day and age, when a war hero like McCain could lose a presidential election merely because he refused to call Barack Obama by his middle name — Hussein — the ICO finding is a much-needed antidote to the liberal madness that surrounds us. There is hope for humanity after all.


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.)

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at