[Former Military Chick]

He wasn't sorry before he was caught.

My mom is a scientist, her data is something she would never tamper with, in the discussion of climate change data there seems to be little integrity.

All of this is junk science, similar to a cult and to be honest I am open to honest and fair debate but those who believe in this have no desire for such discussion's.

At least the UK is willing to investigate, that is more than what the US is will to do.

[stevem]

Prof Jones also insisted the scientific findings on climate change were robust and verifiable.

In days of yore when someone said to me, "My word is my bond," I knew he was lying through his teeth.

These days when when anyone says something is robust, you can be pretty sure it's pure drivel. Obama likes that word.

[dennisw]

Phil Jones is the Miss Lindsey Graham of British Climate science. Duplicitous, unmanly and conniving.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

But no one is condemning him for the “awfulness” of the e-mails. They’re condemning him because the e-mails proved he lied through his teeth about AGW.

[Paladin2]

Jones isn’t a Scientist, he is a Charlatan.

[Chode]

burn him...

[ApplegateRanch]

But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, yesterday defended his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not "standard practice" to do so.

Must be a "standard practice" only in climate "science".

[SeattleBruce]

“All of this is junk science, similar to a cult...”

And the more junk they threw out there, the more they seemed to get paid. Exhibit A: Algore.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[my right]

But Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, yesterday defended his decision not to release the data about temperatures from around the world, saying it was not "standard practice" to do so.

I cannot for the life of me understand how these so called scientist can justify saying that the release of temp. data is not standard practice. What in the hell could be considered secret or proprietary about this info. Who paid for the gathering of this info? How could releasing this data harm anyone other than the charlatans that use it to distort their conclusions? I wish someone would ask these people those questions.