Apparently, in one interview, Al Gore emphasized three times that the "Climate Gate" e-mails are over ten years old, when in truth the most recent e-mail was from last month (so we are going to see a Fact Check on this right? Please?).But there's another take on this aside from Gore's glaring inaccuracy (big surprise there, right?), and that is the impotence of his argument. So what if the e-mails were ten years old? If they contain evidence of manipulation or fraud, their "oldness" doesn't somehow validate them or the motives and actions of the people who wrote them.
Seriously, read the quotes and you'll see what I mean.
Here they are:
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. [so what?] These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
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. [now that's a real argument, I happen to think it's wrong, but it's not lame like this "10 years ago" thing] 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 [okay, you said it twice, so that first one probably wasn't a slip] 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.
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 [okay, so definitely not a slip- Mr. Gore, are you saying there is a statute of limitations on "being wrong"?] kind of silly.
You can read the full text of the leaked "Climate Gate" e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit here.
