Peter Foster: ‘Fakegate’ latest climate clash | FP Comment | Financial Post: "Mr. Gleick’s “deep regret” and “personal apologies” were also leavened by the claim that “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded and co-ordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate.”
But wasn’t the debate meant to be “over”? In fact, shortly before he had released the allegedly incriminating cache, Heartland had invited Mr. Gleick to a public debate. He had turned the offer down. Andy Revkin of The New York Times noted that Mr. Gleick had “destroyed his credibility and harmed others,” but went on to say that “The broader tragedy” was that his actions had set back the prospect of the country having the “‘rational public debate’ that [Gleick] wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.”"
Good point: if the debate is "over" and the science "settled", then why would Mr. Gleick bother?
No comments:
Post a Comment