Thursday, December 10, 2009

Inconvenient Truth: The Goracle on ClimateGate

True to his left-wing netroots, here's Al Gore in full coverup mode on the ClimateGate emails:
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, butthe 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.
Carefully note the observation about the "10 year old" emails. Andrew Bolt of the online Aussie HeraldSun poses another question and Gore returns to the talking point:
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.
What study is Gore talking about? No specifics. (Lefties carefully avoid specifics in favor of indefensible broad pronouncement which the press then reports as fact.) And the emails in question painfully document how "skeptic" studies were excluded from the literature. Note again the 10-year meme.

Yet another question, and Gore does it again:
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.
Note carefully the constant repetition of the talking points. And now having done so, check out the reporter's observations:

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?
Answer: Gore never read the emails and never will. He was neither lying nor terribly mistaken. He was restating, ad nauseam, the standard lefty talking points which, like all things Marxist, don't have to conform to any objective truth. "Global warming" was and always will be a hoax and a massive smokescreen for greater government control over our lives and our pocketbooks, i.e., state socialism run by fashionably lefty elites like Gore.

For Gore, as with good Communist Party members of the past and present, "the truth" is not objective. It's whatever line the Party has decided to preach and to hell with the facts. This is why you get responses from the left that look a lot like Gore's obviously ignorant "10 year" mantra. He's decided this is true (because some moron he trusted probably fed it to him), and will stick to his mantra regardless of the facts that disprove it. Another example of the "fake but accurate" syndrome we saw in RatherGate.

In addition, Gore's already created a corporate structure that will enrich him beyond avarice if cap-and-trade laws get enacted, so he has a vested interest in peddling this crap.

As to what else he got wrong? Answer: everything. Gore's mendacity is absolutely breathtaking. This reporter has called him on it. If clowns like Gore and the academic miscreants on both sides of the Atlantic lie and fudge about scientific truth once, particularly when the stakes are so high, why would we ever believe them again?

2 comments:

The Interface said...

Surely you don't think someone of the stature of the Goracle need comply with reality? After all, he invented the Internet!

Wonker, aka TerryP said...

That's right, he DID invent the Internet. Back in 1968 or thereabouts, right?