Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Wed Nov 25 2009 - 15:20:22 EST

Sorry John, but I have to contest your analysis here.

Personally, I would say it's a stretch to claim that "we all saw the
*actual* e-mails" or that they "speak for themselves".

What *I* saw were a few excerpts - carefully selected and edited by a
journalist with a known anti-GW bias and who - according to qualified
scientists I know and trust personally - himself routinely engages in a
touch of poetic license when it comes the facts on GW.

Now, before you understand me too quickly let me state very clearly: I
am NOT arguing here that Bolt has misrepresented the situation, I am
merely pointing out that Bolt's blog amounts, in essence, to commentary
- that commentary may be dead on the money - it's not the accuracy of it
I'm questioning.

What I AM arguing is that it is simply naive to claim that such
commentary is a case of allowing the documents to "speak for themselves."

Indeed, if they were even capable of doing so, the Herald-Sun would
simply have published the documents without comment - rather than get
one of their staff columnists to to tell us what they mean.

And, again, given that the Ottawa Citizen article doesn't deal with the
actual e-mails it merely cites the opinions of a few people who are
supposed authorities on the matter to say it "vindicates" claims of
impropriety is a stretch.

Again, I'm not saying that the authors of the e-mails are pure of heart
and clean of hands - I'm only expressing an observation that people seem
to have drawn some very strong conclusions, in a very short period of
time. And whilst I could well be a buffoon ideologue living in denial
(I'm pretty sure I'm not an ideologue) an awareness of that possibility
doesn't help me to see things any more clearly.


> My buffoon idealogue comment wasn't directly due to anything in the Ottawa Citizen article. That article was just further vindication of the incredulity of rational people over the defense tactic of selectively hiding behind propriety when it suits the defenders.
> We all saw the actual emails and what I saw was enough, "hiding the decline", "fixing" data, ensuring someone wouldn't be selected for peer review etc.
> I think those that are defending this are the ones not engaging in the actual tect of the emails. They speak for themselves unless you are in denial.
> John

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 25 15:20:55 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 25 2009 - 15:20:57 EST