Alternate headline: “Pope to skip Easter mass.”
- I’ll Make the Globe Warm!
Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that “great annoyance” was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore’s program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.
“We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation,” said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company.
The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that tracks global-warming news reports, referred to the situation as “Nopenhagen,” and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference “is fading.”
A trial lawyer reading through the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) will immediately, almost unconsciously, begin generating a list of questions he would love to ask the authors if he were able to face them on the witness stand and under oath. The beauty of the adversarial process is how cross-examination tests and challenges the other side’s position – precisely what the emails indisputably show the CRU and its allies in the climate change scam have gone to shocking lengths to avoid.
There are several lines of examination that come immediately to mind. We can rest assured that it will never happen – as the emails show, the last thing they want to do is be in a position where they have to explain themselves. But certainly asking leading climate change cheerleader Phil Jones about his email describing his use of a “trick” to describe the manipulation of observed temperature data to “hide the decline” in order to achieve the desired result would be amusing:
- So, Dr. Jones, when you used the word “trick,” you really meant that it was not a “trick” at all but a valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation?
- Can you identify another instance in your experience where a scientist described his valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation with a term commonly used to describe a hoax, scam or fraud?
- And when you wrote the words “hide the decline,” is it now your testimony that when you used the word “hiding,” you were not actually “hiding” anything, and moreover, though you used the word “decline,” there was no “decline” in temperatures to be hidden in the first place?
- So, if I understand your explanation, it is that you commonly use language in your communications which means precisely the opposite of the meaning that you are seeking to communicate?
- And if an email from those who disagree with your findings – who you call “deniers” or “skeptics” – were to be made public that described their use of a “trick” to “hide the increase” in temperatures, would you find this to be of no great import because scientists commonly describe their processes as “tricks” and that their act of “hiding the increase” must be purely benign based on the manner of usage you describe?
- So, is it only proponents of man-made global warming that habitually use words and phrases that mean precisely the opposite of their common usage to describe their work?