Climategate: Gore falsifies the record
Andrew BoltWednesday, December 09, 2009 at 06:54pm
Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and
dismissed them as mere piffle:
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate
Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t
read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These
private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question
about the scientific consensus.
And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:
Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded,
which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open
and fair debate.
A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re
referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t
be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included,
referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago
including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one
thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway
is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really
is.
In fact, thrice denied:
These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R.
dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s
completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just
make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.
In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two
months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The
emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all
from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists
to delete emails is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he
lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?
(Thanks to readers Sinclair and Peter.)
UPDATE
Reader Barry:
Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07
Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a
strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the
FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_1:092009
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
