statism watch

Climategate: Al Gore lies

Share

Flashback: Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 1 | If Climategate Is No Big Deal, Why Are Questions About It Met With An Armed Response? | Climategate: Investigations into climate fraud fixed | ‘Independent’ United Nations panel to examine Climategate evidence | Bombshell UN Climate Documents Reveal Planned “End Run” Around National Sovereignty | Climategate: Global Warming scientists placed under investigation | Latest Climategate revelation: Climate change data dumped | Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation | Obama’s ‘Science Czar’ John Holdren Friend of Climate Deception Lab | “Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists | Top Climatology Lab Hacked, E-Mails Reveal Biased Science | Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire” | IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0 | IPCC case for global warming melts on multiple fronts | Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures | IPCC caught with false figures, doubt cast on accuracy of global temperature record

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
December 18, 2009

Al Gore’s claim last week that the Climategate emails were insignificant relied on two main defences. Both are so flagrantly wrong that it’s not enough to say Gore is simply mistaken.

No, Al Gore is a liar.

Last week we showed that the first of his Climategate defences was so preposterously wrong that it was doubtful he had even read the leaked emails he tried to dismiss. You see, five times in two interviews he dismissed the emails as dated documents that were at least 10 years old:

I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.

In fact, most of the controversial emails, as I showed, were from just the past two years - and the most recent from just last month – November 12, to be precise.

So Gore was so wrong on the first count that it was difficult to think of any way an honest man could have made such a mistake. Five times.

But now Steve McIntyre has exploded the second argument Gore made. And now all doubt in my mind is gone. Gore must have simply lied.

Gore’s second argument was that these emails which seemingly showed Climategate scientists trying to silence or sack sceptical scientists were taken out of context, since the two sceptical papers they referred to were in fact published, after all.

Here is the relevant passage in his interview with Slate:

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.

That is actually false.

But before I go to McIntyre’s evidence on this, first note Gore’s rhetorical trick – or deceit.

His trick is to ignore the mountain of emails that clearly suggest a collusion against sceptics, and the hiding of data, and to suggest instead that the allegations boil down to just a single email about a single instance of two Climategate scientists allegedly blocking two papers.

Here are just some of the Climategate emails that Gore ignored, which all seem evidence of the very collusion to hide data or censor sceptics that he denies. They include ones like this (from 2005):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone

And this (from last year):

From: Phil Jones

To: santer1@XXXX

Subject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008

Ben,

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types – observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter – and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these – all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business – and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

And this (from last year):

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment — minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

And this (from Tom Wigley in 2003, as the Climategate cabal organised the ousting of a sceptic-friendly editor of Climate Scientist):

PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame–he encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about–it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter–50+ people.Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work–must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.

Note that not one of these emails is, as Gore claimed, “more than 10 years old”. The oldest is from 2003 , and the most recent is from just last December.

But let’s go now to the one email Gore does specifically defend as “out of context”. It is this one, which again is not 10 years old but was sent in 2005 by Climategate scientist Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit:


The other paper by MM is just garbage — as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well — frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

(“K” is Kevin Trenberth, a fellow IPCC author.)

Now to Steve McIntyre (go here for his full explanation):

The [warmist] “community“‘s response to this has been: move along, there’s nothing to see. A typical defence is that of Ronald Prinn of MIT … : that improper peer review activities by CRU and their associates didn’t “matter” because McIntyre and McKitrick were discussed by IPCC after all:

“Five papers by McIntyre and McKitrick were published and then referenced and discussed in the IPCC.”

[This is Gore’s argument, too: “the study (sic) ended up being included and discussed anyway”.]

McIntyre resumes:

I’m going to place the money quote in context, showing that Jones and Trenberth did in fact live up to their threats, breaching other IPCC rules along the way.

First of all, contrary to the statement by Prinn (and others), the paper being threatened was not a McIntyre and McKitrick paper; it was Michaels and McKitrick (Climate Research 2004)… The Michaels and McKitrick paper was originally submitted to International Journal of Climatology in May 2004 and was then assigned to Andrew Comrie of the University of Arizona. Comrie sought a review from the omnipresent Phil Jones (and apparently two others). The submission was rejected…

Contrary to the spin of Prinn and others, it is a matter of fact that Trenberth and Jones kept Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the AR4 First Draft. (I searched and confirmed this.) As an IPCC peer reviewer, McKitrick and another reviewer (Vincent Grey) vigorously objected to the exclusion.

Trenberth and Jones flatly rejected their comments. The following is one example. Consult the AR4 First Order Draft Review Comments for others.

References are plentiful. Those of value are cited Rejected. The locations of socioeconomic development happen to have coincided with maximum warming, not for the reason given by McKitrick and Michaels (2004) but because of the strengthening of the Arctic Oscillation and the greater sensitivity of land than ocean to greenhouse forcing owing to the smaller thermal capacity of land.

Ross tells me that there was no peer reviewed literature at the time (or to this day) specifically supporting the Trenberth and Jones attribution of the effect to the “strengthening of the Arctic Oscillation”.

In the Second Order Draft, Trenberth and Jones were once again successful in keeping Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of the IPCC Draft. Once again, as IPCC peer reviewers, McKitrick and Grey objected and once again, the Trenberth and Jones Author Responses were dismissive…

However, there was a complication for Jones and Trenberth, who had thus far been successful in carrying out their threat. This time, there was a second article (de Laat and Maurelis. IJC 2006) making very similar arguments to Michaels and McKitrick…

This time, Trenberth and Jones grudgingly agreed to mention the two articles in the IPCC report. However, they accompanied the mention with an extremely dismissive characterization — a characterization which (1) was made without any citation to peer reviewed literature and (2) that had not itself been submitted to external IPCC peer reviewers; and (3) to which Michaels and McKitrick had no previous opportunity to reply…

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

Despite the IPCC (Jones and Trenberth) claim that the results “cease to be statistically significant”, Ross tells me that this is not the case and that there is no peer reviewed literature supporting this claim…

Jones and Trenberth clearly lived up to the threat to keep Michaels and McKitrick 2004 out of the IPCC AR4 First and Second Drafts, and when that effort foundered somewhat with the addition of de Laat and Maurelis 2006, they inserted a dismissive editorial comment that was not supported by any reference to peer reviewed literature and which had not been itself subjected to the formal IPCC process.

While there are other cases of comments being added in the Final Draft to deal with review comments to the Second Draft, there was no reason for the distortion of the IPCC procedure in this particular case, other than the prior deliberate effort to keep the Michaels and McKitrick article out of the IPCC report.

So Gore’s defence of the Climategate emails is wrong in almost every detail, and spectacularly so. The emails are not at least 10 years old, the evidence of collusion to hide data is not limited to just two sceptics’ papers, and the papers were indeed kept out of two drafts, and then criticised in the report without any peer-reviewed literature to support those attacks.

Gore lied. And he lied because Climategate is a scandal so big that he had to.

Source | See also under Environment: Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 1 | Canada part of Copenhagen climate deal | Final Copenhagen Text Includes Global Transaction Tax | World leaders push for climate deal | UN Chief: We Will Impose Global Governance | Copenhagen: the sound of silence | UN Goons Silence Journalist Who Questions Gore On Climategate | If Climategate Is No Big Deal, Why Are Questions About It Met With An Armed Response? | Copenhagen climate summit releases draft final text | Copenhagen: Global Population Control Program Suggested To Stop Climate Change | IMF could fund climate adaptation: Soros | US Environmental Protection Agency Threatens “Command-and-Control” Economy to Push Climate Change Agenda | Diane Francis: We need a global one-child policy | Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak | Copenhagen climate summit: past decade warmest on record, claims Met Office | Alberta disputes study exposing carcinogens downstream, downwind of oilsands | Climategate: Investigations into climate fraud fixed | ‘Independent’ United Nations panel to examine Climategate evidence | Australia’s Parliament defeats global warming bill | UK energy smart meter roll-out is outlined | Bombshell UN Climate Documents Reveal Planned “End Run” Around National Sovereignty | Climategate: Global Warming scientists placed under investigation | Latest Climategate revelation: Climate change data dumped | Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation | Canada agrees to contribute to $10-billion climate change fund | UK: Brown proposes global fund to kick-start Copenhagen climate change process | Jim Prentice: Implement A ‘North American Climate Change Regime’ | Obama vows greenhouse gas emissions cuts | Obama’s ‘Science Czar’ John Holdren Friend of Climate Deception Lab | “Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists | Top Climatology Lab Hacked, E-Mails Reveal Biased Science | Copenhagen climate talks: No deal, we’re out of time, Obama warns | Leaked G20 Documents Shed Light on Global Carbon Tax | Plant experts unveil DNA barcode | UK University student fined £80 for dropping matchstick on Oxford pavement | Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’ | Big Oil makes case for carbon-capture subsidies | Canada commits to continental wilderness deal | UK: Two-year-olds at risk from ‘gender-bending’ chemicals, report says | Czech President: Copenhagen to be ‘Largest tax increase in world history’ | Friends of the Earth attacks carbon trading as banker scam | Court upholds aboriginal fishing rights on Vancouver Island | Can we manipulate the weather? | Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics | US puts climate debate on hold for five weeks despite plea by Merkel | Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire” | Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate, downgrades CO2 threat | Chinese media claims Beijing snow ‘artificially induced’ | Final round for UN climate talks open in Barcelona | EU agrees to pay developing countries ‘climate aid’ to pass Copenhagen | Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn | Canada sets aside its boreal forest as giant carbon vault | Copenhagen’s Plans for a New ‘Government’ are Scary | Canada’s flax crop mysteriously contaminated by GM seeds | Protesters disrupting question period detained and bloodied by hill security | Copenhagen, carbon, and the global corporate agenda | UK: A bedtime story about drowning kittens and puppies… Labour’s £6m campaign to highlight the dangers of climate change | Pass climate bill before UN summit, Layton says | Britain will starve without GM crops, says major report | Lord Nicholas Stern: The world’s future is being decided this weekend | IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0 | Thatcher science adviser: Copenhagen goal is world government | It is too late to shut the door on GM foods | Water demand puts Canadian rivers at risk | What happened to global warming? | IPCC case for global warming melts on multiple fronts | More defects, exclusions in key climate warming data are uncovered | UK: Garbage spies alarm neighbourhood | Ont. gives green energy price guarantee | Climate change complacency `global suicide pact,’ UN told | UN plans ’shock therapy’ for world leaders at Copenhagen summit | Washington Post Meteorologist: A Skeptical Take on Global Warming | Sarkozy launches carbon tax to help ’save the human race’ | UN chief warns of climate-related disaster | German Scientists Call for ‘World Climate Bank’ | Baby emissions fuel global warming | Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites | Aging Shanghai pushes for more babies | Warming oceans mean less cloud cover | Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism | Counterpoint: Climate skepticism for beginners | Ontario to subsidize electric cars as auto-sector boost | UK Ecotowns to get go-ahead despite local opposition | Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures | G8 Summit: Rich nations to pay green tab | Canada to match U.S. climate change rules | E-mails indicate EPA suppressed report skeptical of global warming | Polar bear expert barred from conference by global warming advocates | US Congress Passes the 1,200-page Climate Bill that it was not allowed to read | Climate Cops To Fine “Wasteful” Homeowners & Businesses | Chemical ban targets toys, rubber duckies | Rutgers Professor Warns Geoengineering Could “Create Disasters,” Global Famine | Obama targets US public with call for climate action | Black ooze at old Cold War station frightens Labrador town | Canada, U.S. will renegotiate Great Lakes water treaty | US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive | Prentice tables bill to expand NWT park under UNESCO | Obama to stake reputation on fast-tracked climate bill | The great carbon credit con: Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment? | Ontario unveils cap-and-trade legislation | Genetically modified monkeys pass traits to offspring | Bee population feels sting of cold, parasites as N.B. population drops | Toronto council approves stringent green-roof rules | Economic stabilization may rely on carbon economy, economist says | Google PowerMeter to track home energy usage in Toronto test drive | Meet — and eat — the modified Atlantic salmon | ‘Smart meters’ set to boost prices, track your power consumption by time of day in Toronto | Bee expert takes issue with dated UN data minimizing honeybee deaths | Researchers working on swine flu ‘vaccine corn’ | Global warming alarmists out in cold | Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | NRTEE Carbon Market Panel is ‘Round Table on Socialist Planning’ | Toronto: New bin regime spawns new rules, confusion for avid recyclers | Climate panel presses for federal cap-and-trade system | David Attenborough becomes patron for population reduction | Carbon tax resurfaces in Liberal policy proposal | Nature, not just man, to blame for global warming: scientists | Obama, Gore, tied to Chicago carbon exchange | U.N. ‘Climate Change’ Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy | UK population must fall to 30m: Optimum Population Trust | U.N. Environment Head Wants Global Warming Tax | Changes to law could affect navigation of Canadian waters, critics say | Scientists warn global warming accelerating | Terence Corcoran: Ontario’s green energy plan sneaks in feed-in taxes | Time to emulate Roosevelt’s New Deal and create green jobs | Gordon Brown’s amazing patent cure-all globalization deal | Top Japanese Scientists: Warming Is Not Caused By Human Activity | Doomsday seed vault’s stores are growing | Genetically Modified Seeds: Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach | Google to enter market for energy use tracking | EU calls for global carbon trading system to fight climate change | Canadian, U.S. energy policies to be inextricably linked: Prentice | As in Canada, gender-bending chemicals in UK rivers grow more potent | UK Slips New Garbage Bin Taxes into Climate Bill | Obama to visit Canada, Tories to propose ‘integrated carbon market’ | Researchers unlock secrets of 1918 flu pandemic | Detroit granted water extraction exemption due to ‘historical precedent’ | Chemicals feminizing males, study suggests | Major report to reveal male gender under threat from pollutants | GM Crops Climb to Nearly One-Tenth of Global Crop Production | Toronto council approves plastic bag charge, bottle ban | UN Climate Change Conference open with call for ‘co-operation’ | Genetically engineered meal close to your table | IPCC caught with false figures, doubt cast on accuracy of global temperature record | Harper ready to harmonize with U.S. on climate change | CBC broadcasts “The Disappearing Male”, an expose of hormone-disrupting plastics | Harper Govt. to push North American carbon market plan with Obama | The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops | Europe’s secret plan to boost GM crop production | UN announces green ‘New Deal’ plan to rescue world economies | UN: financial crisis must not stop climate change action | Mobile phones to track carbon footprint using GPS | Bayer on defensive in bee deaths | Shun meat, says UN climate chief | Bilderberg-connected Desmarais dynasty thinktank supports exporting Canada’s water | Sensitive government document found on rainy Ottawa street | GM crops could lead to ‘disaster’: Prince Charles | Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason | Pesticides, pollutants threaten Canadian tap water, researchers suggest | 40,000 sq km to be signed over to UNESCO | Population control thinktank to Britons: Have less children | Water pact will deplete Great Lakes, expert fears | Small Farmers Pushed to Plant GM Seed | Ontario joins continental WCI cap-and-trade scheme | American thinktanks sowed seeds of food crisis | Canada expanding parkland at ‘extraordinary’ pace | China wages war on Olympic weather | Ontario places vast boreal area under protection, 22% of province off limits to development | Get set — the future starts now | Canada’s made in America energy policy | Manitoba’s boreal forest touted for UNESCO status | Sludge biosolids decried as ‘toxic stew’, used as fertilizer | Sarkozy urges climate change action on first day as EU president | B.C. carbon tax kicks in on Canada Day | Today’s suburbs, tomorrow’s slums? | Home-grown veg ruined by toxic fertiliser | Agribusiness positions GM crops as panacea to predicted global food shortage | Oil, oil everywhere? Well, just maybe | Dion begins selling green plan | Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites | Road tolls, a bitter pill that works | They call it cap and trade, but it’s just another fuel tax | World has enough oil reserves, says BP boss | House of Commons adopts Layton’s Kyoto Plus bill | Monsanto Plans to Save World with its Biotech Crops | Quebec, Ontario sign historic climate pact | Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry ‘carbon ration cards’, say MPs | Beware thirsty Americans, Kennedy tells Canada | The tiny, useful particle that could also be a health problem | Dion begins selling carbon plan | Time has come to put ‘price on waste and pollution’: Dion | Man-made clouds to change the sky | Is it time for toll roads? | Bin Brother is watching you | Scientist who claimed GM crops could solve Third World hunger admits he got it wrong | CEOs call for ‘aggressive’ action on climate change | Vancouver to import road tolls from UK | UK proposes national road tolls to cut congestion | Technology Exists to Redirect Hurricanes, Naval Physicist Says | Weather War? | NASA Funds Sci-Fi Weather Control Technology | Motorists to pay London toll

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Climategate: Al Gore lies”

  1. statism watch » Blog Archive » Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework Says:

    [...] Climategate: Al Gore lies [...]

  2. statism watch » Blog Archive » Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism — Part 2 Says:

    [...] Climategate: Al Gore lies | Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 1 | If Climategate Is No Big [...]

  3. statism watch » Blog Archive » Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels Says:

    [...] by UN IPCC climate chief | Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 2 | Climategate: Al Gore lies | Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 1 | If Climategate Is No Big [...]

  4. statism watch » Blog Archive » Leaked UN Documents Reveal Plan For “Green World Order” By 2012 Says:

    [...] summit showcases new world order | Copenhagen Accord Establishes Global Government Framework | Climategate: Al Gore lies | Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 1 | Canada part of Copenhagen [...]

  5. statism watch » Blog Archive » Arctic winds and not global warming ‘responsible for much of record loss of sea ice’ Says:

    [...] by UN IPCC climate chief | Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 2 | Climategate: Al Gore lies | Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism – Part 1 | If Climategate Is No Big [...]