The WSJ's James Taranto is Full of More Horse Manure Than a Stable of Mares

In a rather convoluted post on the climate change science email scandal this past wednesday, Taranto writes the following:
[NY Times Environmental Reporter Andrew] Revkin reports that the "latest peer-reviewed science" shows that "the case for climate change as a serious risk to human affairs" is "clear, despite recent firestorms over some data sets and scientists' actions."

What we now know about the "peer review" process in this field indicates that this is a predetermined conclusion. Revkin misleads his readers by describing it as if it were a real finding.
It should be considered profound that someone who writes the Wall Street Journal Online's "best of the web" today column could write something either this manipulative, or this inane.

Which is it? Does Taranto know? Does he know why this statement of his is inane? Or is he so driven by lopsided ideological zeal that he can't see it?

"What we know" about the peer review process in this field does not indicate that this is a predetermined conclusion.  It indicates that it was potentially a predetermined conclusion with respect to a few scientists in this field. 

There's a pretty big difference there.  

But then, logic is not Taranto's strong suit. Not by a long shot.  No wonder why he writes an incredibly partisan blog for the Wall Street Journal.  Decent logical skills -- as opposed to the ability to convince others of same (others who simply want their beliefs reinforced, and to be made to think tha they are thinking without actually doing so) -- would get in the way of that, as well as in the Wall Street Journal's editorial philosophy. 

Here's some more from the same column:
"Along similar lines is this comment from Michael Tomasky, the American Washington correspondent of London's Guardian:

One hope I had for the Obama era was that maybe we'd all grow up and have quasi-substantive debates about these things. Well, if anything, this "conversation" in America has become even more immature and batty than it was before. It ain't Barack's fault. But there's very little hope in America of having a serious conversation about anything.
Tomasky has a point, and here's a good example of a statement that is immature in both tone and substance: "It ain't Barack's fault."
Exactly.  Because Obama is doing so much to quash substantive debate!  And it's particularly because of Obama that we don't have any, any more.  

Question for the Wall Street Journal Editors:   What kind of crack is Taranto smoking?  Oh wait, the ridiculously partisan crack of far right wing pre determined belief driven ideology.