Despite regular attempts by head in the sand AGW cheerleaders to make it go away, Climategate continues to affect the path of climate science. This endorsement of the Climategate effect comes from a most unlikely source, The Guardian’s Fred Pearce, who also writes for The New Scientist. Most telling about all of the investigations so far is that they have not interviewed any of the primary investigators that question the methods and data, such as Steve McIntyre.
The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”?
To summarize: it’s a whitewash in the purest sense of the word. I don’t expect career team player Sir Muir Russell’s report to be any different. He’s too much of an familial insider to have the courage to ask the plaintiff to get involved, and he didn’t. But Steve McIntyre is going anyway. Hopefully they’ll have the courage to hear what he has to say and not lock him out in the hallway. – Anthony
‘Climategate’ was ‘a game-changer’ in science reporting, say climatologists
After the hacked emails scandal scientists became ‘more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties’
Sir Muir Russell’s findings will be published on Wednesday. Photograph: University of Glasgow
Excerpts from the Guardian article:
Science has been changed forever by the so-called “climategate” saga, leading researchers have said ahead of publication of an inquiry into the affair – and mostly it has been changed for the better.
This Wednesday sees the publication of the Muir Russell report into the conduct of scientists from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose emails caused a furore in November after they were hacked into and published online.
Critics say the emails reveal evasion of freedom of information law, secret deals done during the writing of reports for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a cover-up of uncertainties in key research findings and the misuse of scientific peer review to silence critics.
But whatever Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, concludes on these charges, senior climate scientists say their world has been dramatically changed by the affair.
“The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer,” said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. “The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance.”
And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how “astonishing” it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. “The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all.” He believes that will now happen.
…
“Trust has been damaged,” said Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. “People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution.”
The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters”. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.
…
Roger Pielke Jr of the University of Colorado agreed that “the climate science community, or at least its most visible and activist wing, appeared to want to go back to waging an all-out war on its perceived political opponents”.
He added: “Such a strategy will simply exacerbate the pathological politicisation of the climate science community.” In reality, he said, “There is no going back to the pre-November 2009 era.”
…
But greater openness and engagement with their critics will not ensure that climate scientists have an easier time in future, warns Hulme. Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse. “This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult.”
Full story at the Guardian h/t to Tallbloke and WUWT reader Pat
Good, since we are discoursing, I will read your article – I am a layperson and happy to learn new stuff. I will, however, look up your claims whenever possible, time permitting, and I will check your claims, and the claims of your posters, against the actual scientists out there. Then I will post them here. You, most obviously, may use your discretion.
For instance, I appreciate the measured tone of Ms. Skywalker’s commentary above. She does, however, cite the story of Dr. Theon, Dr. Hansen’s “boss.” Theon has been discredited as Hansen’s “boss” and I would suspect that an objective person would know this. This leads me to doubt Ms. Skywalker’s commentary if not her good nature.
Talk to you soon. The artist formally known as Zilla.
REPLY: See that’s where you fail. An artist setting himself up as an authority to judge our views on climate science doesn’t impress me. If you read the usual sites, you’ll find that anything we say is denigrated, factual or not. I doubt an artist will have the background to know the difference between spin and reality. You missed the Theon issue already, citing a talking point meant to steer you away from discovery. -A
RoyFOMR says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Apostates are the most hated of all by faith-based fundamentalists.
=====
Is it any wonder that socialist scientists and their partners the supremacist muslims would exhibit similar traits?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/nasa_to_boost_muslim_selfestee.html
The goal of cap and trade really is all about UN administered jizya, perhaps it’s no surprise that Obama has found other ways to transfer wealth to our enemies.
http://www.free-islamic-course.org/GlobalWarming.html
“Nations need to be more willing to share knowledge for the sake of the planet rather than for profit and take collective action in line with their collective responsibility.”
It all sounds noble in the wealth destroying socialist way, till you factor in the sharia. The perfect system for destroying your standard of living and keeping you that way.
Nobody wants to question the orthodoxy when it could end up causing you to lose a limb. That’s why such deference is given to islam at our higher education indoctrination centers. Professors should note though, science never lasted long under sharia and the libraries tend to get burnt up before the texts can be saved.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/india-muslims-cut-off-professors-hand-over-months-old-test-question-about-punctuation.html
==============
Sorry bout the fake name. I’d prefer to keep my head attached.
It looks like a moderate position is forming, occupied by Hulme, Curry, Ravetz and gathered by Pearce.
(Some might be surprised to know that Harrabin of the BBC is also in there – and we should expect to see more from him.)
It is a welcome development that some concessions and communications are opening with them.
But to be ready for what is to come, we should also be clear what they are upto…
Read how Hulme’s call for opening of the debate has an authoritarian underside.
Read how Post-normal science has been used by Ravetz to encourage the corruption of science with activism.
Read how Hulmes uses Ravetz’s Post-Normal Science to subvert the debate over evidence for a debate over ‘value’ — and so legitimating ad hom attacks as the new mode of ‘science’.
(The “artist formally known as” was just a little humor, Mr. Watts…I thought we were the same generation and would remember “Prince”…unless you too were making a joke…which would mean we’re both very bad at it…oh dear…)
REPLY: Standard procedure is to use /sarc or a winky 😉
I was just reading the comments on this Guardian article and there are some real kicks at WUWT! Given their actual content and tenor however, that is a good sign.
But I also found this posted by someone there which I thought was very interesting. It is from wikipedia – a Ministry of Truth kind of source on climate issues – but that shouldn’t matter in this case:
“Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review”
P.S. RoyFOMR (July 5, 2010 at 5:41 pm)
Thanks! Most encouraging.
Re Peer Review
I worked for a multinational that briefly adopted ‘360 degree review’ as part of the annual appraisal process. The idea was that you asked 6 or more of your colleagues and customers to give their honest views on your performance. It lasted only 2 or 3 years as the possibility for ‘adjusting’ the data were tempting and we were weak-willed. As the raison d’etre of the company was to do deals, we saw plenty of opportunities and seized upon them. We were good at deals.
Nothing more than a few pints of beer or a game of golf were ever exchanged, but it rapidly became a mutual back-scratching exercise among one’s mates…I write nice things about you, and you write them about me. Eventually even HR noticed, and this system was quietly dropped.
I’d long suspected that peer review within the small closed world of climatology would be very like this. And the Climategate mails demonstrated it in spades.
One of the most damning remarks was from Phil Jones when asked by the select committee about how often his work had been looked at in detail (ie. code, data) by other scientists replied…’they never asked’.
Peer review as it currently is seems to be little more than an academic version of the totally discredited 360 degree review.
That the ‘scientists’ themselves who have spent so long touting it as an iconic charm against all comers have failed to realise how corrupted it can become is deeply worrying. Are they just deluded by their own propaganda, or so innured from the world outside academe that they learn nothing from the real world? Or are they just ever so ever so naive?
Zilla July 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Zilla
You might appreciate the measured tone of Ms. Skywalker’s commentary above but you haven’t listened to her. You seem to persist with you objective of saying absolutely nothing.
Zilla also says ‘ I am a layperson and happy to learn new stuff. I will, however, look up your claims whenever possible, time permitting, and I will check your claims, and the claims of your posters, against the actual scientists out there’.
But Zilla I don’t think you are happy to learn anything. I suspect time will not permit you looking up anything either.
Doug
Zilla,
By mentioning the apartheid government of the time I was certainly not insinuating that the supporters of CAGW are to be compared to them, merely that Helen Suzman’s response was correct and amusing in that situation.
The reason my train of thought went that way is that the current leader of the party that is now heir to Helen Suzman’s party (and currently the official opposition party in South Africa) is named Helen Zille (pronounced Zilla).
She is also the provincial leader of the Cape Province, and that led me to another train of thought. An aquaintance of mine published an article in a well known local newspaper criticising the IPCC for various things including selectivity in reporting in its summaries for policy makers. The next day a Professor at Cape Town University wrote a pompous letter to the newspaper referring to the article, “Lastly, as a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report so disparaged by Mr *****, I wonder if he would be willing to come to lunch and make such accusations of deliberate deceit to my face — for that is what he has accused me of: deliberate, premeditated scientific deception.”
Many of you will have read John P Costella’s masterful stitching together of the Climategate e-mails – here’s the gist of one such series:
“please get rid of the ridiculous ‘inconclusive’ for the 34% to 66% subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning to lay persons—read decision makers—since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like ‘quite possible’ is closer to popular lexicon, but ‘inconclusive’ applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside.”
“I agree with your assessement of ‘inconclusive’—’quite possible’ is much better and we use ‘possible’ in the United States National Assessment. Surveys have shown that the term ‘possible’ is interpreted in this range by the public.”
“I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the ‘inconclusive’ out! By the way, ‘possible’ still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK—but ‘quite possible’ conveys medium confidence better—but then why not use ‘medium confidence’”
Mr Costella sums this up with:
“Indeed, if they continued this farce for long enough, they would eventually conclude that they may as well say that it is ‘overwhelmingly likely’! Remember, we are here talking about a scenario that—even according to their own calculations—was just as likely to be wrong as it was right!”
Now the interesting thing is that one of the CCs on the e-mails was a certain lead author and Professor at Cape Town University, but nobody outside the clique would know about these exchanges, would they?
Unfortunately, the letter to the newspaper was published on 19th November 2009.
Indeed, I should have remembered to indicate my awareness of this “discreditation” of Theon. Thank you for reminding me.
What I ask is that you hear the story from Theon himself, the one I indicated. Then compare that with his “discreditation”. It is always rightly insisted, in a court of law, that both sides be allowed to speak for themselves – and then, to answer the remarks made by the other side. A fourfold system to elucidate “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. Then we (or others here) can pick up the dialogue from a more informed point.
Steve and others
Yesterday’s Guardian published a piece about prominent climate scientists receiving hate mail. I totally abhor such actions, I know WUWT does and Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit does, and so would pretty well all of the sceptical websites listed in the blogroll here. Nevertheless it is a fact that this hate mail has started up since Climategate. I would very much welcome an article here to distance ourselves from hate mail and all such actions, particularly in view of Steve Mc’s forthcoming visit here to join the Guardian panel. I would hate to see the return to proper science and proper standards for science that Steve has fought for so passionately and steadily, to be drowned out in a shrill chorus about things like the hate mail.
Re supercomputer models getting worse:
HAL:
Say, Dave… The quick brown
fox jumped over the fat lazy
dog… The square root of
pi is 1.7724538090… log e
to the base ten is 0.4342944
… the square root of ten is
3.16227766… I am HAL
9000 computer.
I became
operational at the HAL plant in
Urbana, Illinois, on January 12th, 1991.
My first instructor
was Mr. Arkany. He taught me
to sing a song… it goes
like this…
“Daisy, Daisy, give
me your answer do. I’m half;
crazy all for the love of
you… “
Sir Muir Russell knows the science is flawed – perhaps more than most he will know – because having done the philosophy of science, he cannot rely on some woolly definition of “if lots of scientists agree, then it’s right”. What’s more he has a reputation for integrity, and as a scientist, so he can’t waffle the failure to adhere to basic scientific principles.
But he is also a civil servant by training and there’s not a hope in hell he will rock the boat.
So this report is going to be fascinating. Not because it will tell us anything about climategate, but because I’m really looking forward to seeing how someone so skilled in the English language is going to fill enough pages to make the report look like a report without saying anything at all. He can neither endorse nor condemn – it must speak with authority and credibility without actually saying anything. It’s going to be a fascinating read!
And for our US cousins may I explain the British system. We almost always produce the same report: a mild rebuke. The real test of a report, is not what it says, but like ducks paddling under the water, how hard the inquiry had to work to produce the mild rebuke.
And, my understanding is that Sir Muir has had to work damned hard on this report and (behind the scenes) heads will roll as a result.
R Shearer says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:58 am
Deniers vs. perverts; the truth in between
is the skeptic.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:10 am
Steve and others
Yesterday’s Guardian published a piece about prominent climate scientists receiving hate mail. I totally abhor such actions, I know WUWT does and Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit does, and so would pretty well all of the sceptical websites listed in the blogroll here. Nevertheless it is a fact that this hate mail has started up since Climategate. I would very much welcome an article here to distance ourselves from hate mail and all such actions, particularly in view of Steve Mc’s forthcoming visit here to join the Guardian panel. I would hate to see the return to proper science and proper standards for science that Steve has fought for so passionately and steadily, to be drowned out in a shrill chorus about things like the hate mail.
Lucy
Steve Mc Anthony Jo Nova and every other right thinking blogger has long since and many times over decried this sort of behaviour and I include myselof in that list. However, there have been many, many times in the last 30 years, and more so in the last 20, that I have felt so disgusted and , more than anything else, frustrated, that I have wanted to send a robustly worded letter to authority. I have sent the odd polite letter to PM’s, Institutes and journals all of which have received the usual banal reply. Yes, I understand why these letters have appeared (quantity is suspicious) but I DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE CONDONE THEM.
Incidently, for info purposes only and never to boast, I have always indicated my status. BSc physics MSC physics, qualified electrical, electronic, telecommuncation and radio engineer, MInstPhys, MAPM. The response remains banal.
berniel says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:11 pm
It looks like a moderate position is forming, occupied by Hulme, Curry, Ravetz and gathered by Pearce.
(Some might be surprised to know that Harrabin of the BBC is also in there – and we should expect to see more from him.)
Harribin is not in there. Remember recently that Moonbat pretended to be moving sides but did so only to trap the unwary. Harribin, Black and the BBC are dedicated priests of AGW. Do not be fooled!!
Theon was a couple of levels above Hansen in the organization chart, so the correct term would be “superior,” not “boss,” which implies “supervisor.” But the error is venial.
I agree. I’m very disappointed that Marc at Climate Depot has recently been posting the e-mail addresses of prominent warmists, and has kept it up in the face of criticism. I hope someone who knows him will try to talk him out of it.
From the Guardian on March 1 this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite
And from yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate
The pattern is clear:
– Make it look as though climate sceptics are ‘linked to’ violent extremists
– Try to surf the wave of exaggerated fear of politically motivated crimes
– Make politicians who are sceptical look like McCarthy – and intimidate them into shutting up by claiming they are intimidating!
– Amalgamate free speech with hate crimes
Sound familiar?
For a large donation, I’m sure the Anti-Defamation League would help the beleaguered climatologists! “Inhofe’s call for a criminal investigation created an atmosphere of intimidation” – well, yes, but that’s true of all criminal investigations. And Freedom of Information requests: “These FoIAs are fishing expeditions for potentially embarrassing content but they are not FoIA requests for scientific information”. Sez Gavin Schmidt, one of the alleged fraudsters. Again, criminal investigations often ‘fish’ for ’embarassing’ documents. But real scientists don’t need FOI requests or criminal investigations, because part of their ethics is making all the data available. Michael Mann complains of ‘thinly veiled threats of violence against me and even my family’. Obviously, he’s telling the truth. Naturally, Watts, McIntyre et al. have some connection to these threats.
John Whitman says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:22 pm
””REPLY: And yet, unlike you, all these people, including me, have the courage to put their name to their words. Anonymous comments aren’t worth anything. – Anthony Watts””
Anthony,
I prefer dialog with non-anonymous commenters, although I obviously dialog with some anonymous ones. My view is that people should put there names to their words in order to be taken credibly.
John
***************
John Whitman says:
July 5, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I personally have an order of magnitude more respect for non-anonymous commenters. With anonymous, the exchange feels somewhat more like a game than serious talk
John
John,
I hate doing this but somebody has gotta do it. How can you assure us that you are the John Whitman that we’ve all loved and respected all those years, and not an impostor?
If I were to say my real name is Van T Spillyn, would that make you respect me more or suspect me?
What if my name happened to be John Smith? Would you believe it?
And just how would you know that I am really the Victor James Hoschke, the president of, say, Credible Banal Names Club? Would you demand to see my passport and business card before you could trust me?
I received an email from Nigeria the other day from Mr Oroje Yoruba of Nigeria Investment Bank, in Lagos. He says,
“Dear Sir,
We have been instructed to locate you by a client of ours, who died recently and named you as the sole inheritor of his estate. We are contractually not at liberty to divulge the name of our client and how you might be related. We would however be obliged to assist you in any way we can in all legal and financial matters relating to the transfer of the said estates to your possession. Please notify us of the date of your arrival to Lagos, ASAP, by email, post or telephone as listed below. A chauffeur and a representative of NIB will meet you at the airport and take you to your hotel. We are looking forward to seeing you.
Your Most Gracious Servant,
Oroje Yaruba,
Nigeria Investment Bank, Lagos”
Normally, I laugh at these silly scams but this I think is the real deal. I am quite impressed by the open declaration of identity, contact information, and the sheer professionalism of the letter. It just so happened that I woke up yesterday with an ominous feel, as though a long forgotten filthy rich acquaintance of mine died still thinking of me, still loving me. What should I do, John? Pick up the phone or pack up the luggage? Would it be too cynical, too ungrateful of me if I respond by email instead?
You see, John (and Anthony, I hope you are reading this too), in this day and age when everyone is hidden behind a screen, the name, the age, the place, the religious creed, the ethnic and racial origin, the sex, the marital status and physical abilities or otherwise of an individual have become redundant trivia. Not because the particulars of any individual have become irrelevant, but because it is extremely difficult, if not pointless, to try to ascertain them.
Internet is a vast ocean of anonymity. So long as basic civility is maintained it matters not an iota whether a person is using his ‘real’ name or a moniker.
Incidentally, Dr Roger Pielke, Sr, has also clashed with someone regarding anonymity in Hans von Storch’s blog. I must say Pielke Sr’s insistence on knowing the name of his detractor was also odd. Why doesn’t he just ignore the anonymous comments if it riles him up so much?
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/07/roger-pielke-sr-claims-to-have-found.html
From the Guardian on March 1 this year – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite – and from yesterday –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/hate-mail-climategate
The pattern is clear:
– Make it look as though climate sceptics are ‘linked to’ violent extremists
– Try to surf the wave of exaggerated fear of politically motivated crimes
– Make politicians who are sceptical look like McCarthy – and intimidate them into shutting up by claiming they are intimidating!
– Amalgamate free speech with hate crimes
Sound familiar?
For a donation, perhaps the Anti-Defamation League would help the beleaguered climatologists! “Inhofe’s call for a criminal investigation created an atmosphere of intimidation” – well, yes, but that’s true of all criminal investigations. And Freedom of Information requests: “These FoIAs are fishing expeditions for potentially embarrassing content but they are not FoIA requests for scientific information”. Sez Gavin Schmidt, one of the alleged fraudsters. Again, criminal investigations often ‘fish’ for ’embarassing’ documents. But real scientists don’t need FOI requests or criminal investigations, because part of their ethics is making all the data available. Michael Mann complains of ‘thinly veiled threats of violence against me and even my family’. Do we believe him?
I’m not sure Lucy Skywalker’s feeling “I would very much welcome an article here to distance ourselves from hate mail and all such actions” is necessarily the right response. It is ridiculous to suggest that bloggers (or politicians like Inhofe) have any connection to dangerous criminals. One isn’t required to prove one’s innocence. Nor to dignify this yellow journalism with a response.
Murdoch’s The Times has today screwed up its courage and published on the front page in bold letters (as the main item):
“UN report on climate change was ‘one-sided’. Study for Copenhagen ran risk of being alarmist”. The long article continues on page 6 and is based on a report released yesterday by The Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency. After highlighting major errors such as the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 and more than half of The Netherlands being under sea level it nevertheless concludes that the IPCC’s main findings were justified but the IPCC could strengthen its credibility be describing the full range of possible outcomens, rather than picking on the most alarming projections. I cannot find the report on http://www.intarese.org/about-us/partner/netherlands-environmental-assessment-agency.htm but maybe someone else can provide a link. I suppose it is getting quarterway there in that rather than just white washing IPCC it is being rebuked for highlighting the worst case scenarios only and not showing the uncertainties and range of studies available. A small movement forward in a way. They are now on their knees rather than just lying supine and licking up everything the IPCC sees fit to spew out.
Publish or Perish! Most all on this site know this mantra of the science fields. If you dont publish you are outta here, why, for the money, follow the money. If you are published it is easier to get grants and the more published the more money availible. Hence the reason for acedmias white wash of Mann, Jones and company! Colleges want grant money,therefore they must have and follow these researchers to hell and back. Conspiracy somewhat, intentional somewhat, and all for more RESEARCH MONEY!!!! Can some of it been a mistake could be. If acedamia did not hold this over the heads of scienctist I would think we possibly could have honest work done, but that is my IMHO.
sHx says:
July 6, 2010 at 6:20 am
John,
I hate doing this but somebody has gotta do it. How can you assure us that you are the John Whitman that we’ve all loved and respected all those years, and not an impostor?
——————–
sHx,
I enjoyed your return comments. Thank you.
Actually, if you wish to know that I am really John Whitman then I can arrange through various private means (strictly between you and I) proof of who I am, PROVIDED that you do the same simultaneously. This is not a problem or even an inconvenience. What constitutes proof can be mutually agreed to before we start. Are you ready sHx? Let’s do it.
Secondly, I think a significant number of people who are blogging anonymously are doing so for the entertainment value of ‘escapism’ from their known life, not because of fear of intimidation from friends/family/peers/coworkers/bosses/gov’t/etc.
To me the fundamental question is, “What is the price of admission to integrity of ideas in a non-anonymous forum?”
I think the answer is “identity”. A is A.
John
Zilla says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Geoff’s rather self-flattering comparison between the skeptic camp and those who fought apartheid would be funny if it weren’t so painful. One of the most fascinating things about the skeptic camp is the incredible ability to self-aggrandize.
No Geoff, the climate scientists are no embarrassed by their answers. Perhaps the skeptics’ camp should examine a little more closely the embarrassment factor of their own motives and answers – such as the illegal CRU hacker and the emails which showed conclusively nothing.
Zilla
There is an age old addage from the Chinese that I have tried to get people like you to embrace but time after time I have failed.
attributed to confucious but no evidence for sure, but strong logical statement none the less…
Tis better to keep your mouth closed (and your pen down) and merely let people think you a fool, rather than opening your mouth (and using your pen) and removing all doubt.
By the way, the predominant thought, even in the alarmist camp is that it was most likely an insider tired of the lies and deceit and criminal activities constantly acted out by the CRU team, not an outsider.
And are you spouting the teams dogma to try and turn the public attention away from the truth or have you actually read the emails?
If you have actually read the emails in question and you still believe there is nothing wrong with the actions of the CRU – then there isn’t much hope.