How to Forge a Consensus

NTV
Friday, Nov 27th, 2009

The climatologists at the center of last week’s
leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all
much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages
was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the
underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

“What they’ve done is search through stolen personal
emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a
language they understand and is often foreign to the outside
world,” Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday.
Mr. Mann added that this has made “something innocent into
something nefarious.”

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia’s
Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing
from the same climate hymnal. “My colleagues and I accept that
some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or
confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of
the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close
colleagues,” he said this week.

We don’t doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails
differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May
2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.’s Fourth Assessment
Report: “Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with
Keith re AR4?” does not “read well,” it’s true.
(Mr. Mann has said he didn’t delete any such emails.)

Full article here