By Andrew Bolt
News.com.au
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?