Skip to comments.The "ClimateGate" affair
Posted on 12/02/2009 12:09:42 AM PST by Yollopoliuhqui
The "ClimateGate" affair - the publication of e-mails and documents hacked or leaked from one of the world's leading climate research institutions - is being intensely debated on the web. But what does it imply for climate science? Here, Mike Hulme and Jerome Ravetz say it shows that we need a more concerted effort to explain and engage the public in understanding the processes and practices of science and scientists.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
The MSM are trying to stonewall this fiasco until after Copenhagen. Copenhagen is for all the marbles. If they dont get an agreement in place, its over for globalwarmingclimatechange and they know it. Thats why they are risking the last shred of credibility they have as well as ensuring further losses in readership over Climategate. We need to put bodies on the ground noisily at that meeting. We need to put pies in faces at that meeting.
I just bought a case of Orville Redenbacher's and got the couch potato drop cloth out of the closet.
Only since the creation of the EPA.
Climate Change Criminal Conspiracy Continues
You mean the great BBC cannot figure out if the emails were hacked or leaked. Alex Jones today had confidence enough today to say the were leaked by employees that did not want to participate in fraud. He said, as others have, that the insiders gave the BBC the emails six weeks before Climategate and they failed to act on them. He called that a criminal act. Link = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NJVr-M1rg
This 43-page PDF file by Lord Monckton in the aftermath of Climategate is meant to be comprehensive in its telling of the Climate Change Conspiracy. The “Essential Readings” linked on pages 40-42 make this even more remarkable:”Climategate: Caught Green-Handed” by Lord Monckton- http://www.scribd.com/doc/23450290/Monckton-Caught-Green-Handed-Climate-Gate-Scandal?
I think is a red herring.
The language used by the BBC reporter who was the recipient of some of the Climategate e-mails was very poorly chosen. He inferred that he had them all or most of them. I don't believe he did. What he did have was a few of them that concerned some articles that he had written on his blog. As a result he was in a position to validate the authenticity of those few that were common between the Climategate documents and those that he had received a month earlier. Were those earlier e-mails "incriminating" to the same extent as the Climategate docs? I doubt it since they were freely released by CRU.
I would stay away from this aspect of the story. There is plenty of red meat in what know.