---

Peter Foster: The Goracle speaks on Climategate
True believers in catastrophic man-made climate change have been waiting for Al Gore to lead them through the Valley of Climategate. This week, The Goracle spoke. Appearing on CNN, he claimed that the emails to and from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia were more than 10 years old and amounted to a mere discussion of “arcane points.” What this was really about, he said, was an example of “people who don’t want to do anything about the climate crisis taking things out of context and misrepresenting them.” But then what would you expect Mr. Gore to say about his co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize? If they go down, he goes down.

The emails, (which in fact date up to late this year), far from being meaningless or out of context, show alteration of scientific data and flagrant attempts to rig the peer review process, which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has always claimed was the bedrock of its scientific objectivity. ...

...During his CNN interview, Mr. Gore went through his usual parade of extreme weather factoids, technological wonkery and green stimulus fantasies, while spouting blatant untruths. Asked about the relative contribution of humans to atmospheric CO2 emissions, he claimed that they put up “the majority” (in fact, they are estimated to contribute about one-twentieth). Interestingly, though, Mr. Gore didn’t use one of the staples of his climate vaudeville act: that “deniers” are like those who believe that the moon landing was faked. Perhaps even he lacked the gall to bring up conspiracy theories when the evidence of a genuine conspiracy is so obvious.

Mr. Gore and his cohorts have consistently smeared climate realists and policy skeptics as “deniers,” paranoiacs or corporate shills. “Denier” invokes Holocaust denial. Paranoia is linked to those conspiracy theorists who claim that Neil Armstrong’s lunar landscape was really a movie backlot. The corporate shill angle is usually based on “exposing” some skeptical individual’s or organization’s link to Big Oil, which is in fact irrelevant unless you judge science on the basis of funding rather than objectivity. Oil companies in fact devote far more money to supporting climate hysteria. ...