| | In short, the whole event is a tempest in a teapot.
One of the claims made by those with an anti-AGW stance is that one of the scientists described something as a 'trick', and thus the only possible interpretation is some sort of nefarious evil nasty no-good plot, rather than, say, a clever mathematical hack.
Another point raised is that in one graph, where temperatures are derived from tree-rings, the most recent tree-ring data is thrown out in favour of /direct/, more accurate temperature data. The scientist who created this graph used the word 'hiding', which is, again, taken as obvious incontrovertible proof of evil intent to falsify data, rather than, say, a conscious and well-known way to deal with a well-known issue with tree-ring-based temperatures called the 'divergence problem'.
And so forth.
To sum it up, those who are looking for talking-points to back up their preconceived notions, rather than bothering to look at the evidence and then make up their mind, have decided to cherry-pick the worst possible words and put the worst possible spin on them, for their own political purposes, rather than actually examining the issue for the actual data with which to /then/ make up their minds.
Or, as Cardinal Richelieu is once claimed to have said, "Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.", roughly translated as, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
|
|
