While they caught on much quicker than the first time, it has taken the Fairfax media a while to cover Climategate 2.0. When they did finally do a story on it, they took the expected dismissive tone.
The British climatologist ensnared in a major new email leak has taken his case to the public, arguing that he and his colleagues’ comments have again been taken out of context.
Jones and his colleagues have since been vindicated by a series of independent investigations, but the university’s reputation has been dented by criticism that it refused to share data with sceptics.
If Jones wanted to corroborate the “out-of-context” line, perhaps he could have been asked by a couple of these ‘investigations’ to elaborate on the context of each comment.
The university and other climate scientists believe the leak was delayed until now “to cause maximum disruption” to the imminent UN climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.
It is too much of a coincidence for this not to be the case, but warmists have used this line to suggest something sinister on the part of the hacker. I see nothing wrong in withholding some emails in this manner.
Jones also was asked about a message he wrote suggesting that emails could be deleted to dodge freedom of information requests. Both he and his university have been criticised for obstructionist attitudes toward Britain’s right-to-know law, and the university now says it’s far more open about sharing its data.
In his response, Jones appeared to suggest that the public need not interest itself in the inner workings of groups such as the International Panel on Climate Change, which produces authoritative reports on the future of the world’s weather [wouldn’t that be climate?- Ed].
“Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?” Jones said.
That is extraordinary. Why must we concern ourselves with the IPCC’s process? Because their reports are regarded by warmists as the “gold standard” and have worldwide policy implications. We have every right to want to hold them to scrutiny, which thankfully has been applied by people such a Donna Laframboise. Also, note the use of the word “authoritative”. Not scientific, is it?
Who knows if the hacker/whistleblower has more in store for us. Maybe we have some more emails to look forward to. What I am certain of however, is that we’re not yet done with these ones. Christmas in November! It comes every two years.