Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

David Hone
Climate Change Adviser, Shell Group

David Hone

David Hone is the climate change adviser for the Shell Group and vice chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. He also works closely with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. ALL POSTS

Don't judge a book by its cover

Q: Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over global warming?

The story here is a simple one and it could apply to any one of us. Think of all the e-mails you have written over the past 10 years. Now imagine that someone ciminally breaks into your e-mail account and downloads all of them, handpicks a few and posts them on the internet to cast you in a particular light. We could all be shown to be saints or sinners or anything in between.

Now look at what has happened with these scientists going about their work in much the same way anyone of us might attend to our job. Enough said.

By David Hone  |  November 24, 2009; 6:03 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Copenhagen is one step in a long journey | Next: A purposeful distraction

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



David Hone obviously did not read the e-mails. Typically liberal laziness.

Posted by: vanhook99 | November 28, 2009 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Shell hires a climate change adviser so they can keep the whack jobs calm. As you can see, it worked on B2O2. I doubt they take much of his advice. From the Shell guys comments, I certainly think Shell should take a look at his emails. Then he says "now look what has happened with these scientist going about their work in much the same way anyone of us might attend to our job". Now I know Shell should take a close look at this guy.

Posted by: kgrubb2 | November 28, 2009 4:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pretty weak argument, David. Your emails must be quite different from those I send and receive. Basing a scientific argument on something as silly and unscientific as yours is, well - silly and unscientific. You really sound at a loss for an explanation. I mean, if "well you probably did it too" is all you've got, I think you need to update your resume. Good grief!

Posted by: bullyboyal | November 25, 2009 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Actually, I have to say that it's heartening to see two commentators from the oil industry (Mr. Hone and David Hales) who are at least not promulgating sensational innuendo about this being some kind of smoking gun. Reading between the lines, they know this debate is long over, and their industry - after a protracted and impressive effort to confuse the public and stall progress on this - now knows we have to do something to address it.

[I do note that no one from Exxon has come in to calm the waters, but that would be like expecting the devil himself to step into a war zone and work toward peace.]

The insurance industry has been on board for several years now (they know they're going to increasingly get hit with claims due to more frequent natural disasters), the Pentagon jumped on about a year or so ago, and the oil companies are grudingly coming on board. Well, kudos to them - I suppose it is hard facing a reality that isn't helpful to your profit outlook.

Now, if we could only get the eternally-misled, FauxNews-captive right wing of America on board, we might be able to move forward on this like adults. How 'bout it guys? Your world and your country need you. Feel like stepping up yet?

Posted by: B2O2 | November 25, 2009 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What a crock... and what a weak argument in support of liars who have been caught destroying data that revealed the errors of thier haughty positions, suppressing inconvenient facts, and behaving badly in the name of their personal collection of hand-crafted, freshly baked, cleverly faked data.
They should be ashamed, as should those who lunge to defend the indefensible. Saying everyone does it means anyone can, and you don't want it to go there, do you? Sure, you're comfortable living the lie, but sooner or later, you and your family will have to live with that guilt out in the open. And where that'll lead you, I hear warming has gone on for an eternity.

Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | November 25, 2009 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Not enough said ! A review of my e-mails would not show these type of thoughts or actions in regard to my subject comments. By the way ever heard of the Pentagon Papers or leaking of government documents ? I guess that could be considered criminal BUT sure didn't stop people from accepting what was released as true!

Posted by: mct1 | November 25, 2009 10:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company