re: #240 captdiggs

Well, charles, the determination of who is a protected whistleblower is usually left up to the courts to decide.
The UK has one of the more liberal whistleblower protection laws ( [Link: www.opsi.gov.uk…] ).
In the US under Sarbanes-Oxley the anonymous disclosure of data is protected ( [Link: www.dataprotection.ie…] ) under “whistleblower” laws, as long as the data is not personal and related to the crime or deceit being reported.

I have no idea who did it, neither do you. But what seems clear is that when I suggest that there be a comprehensive investigation into all of this, you and some others get quite defensive.
If no wrong doing was done by Jones, et al, at CRU, then there is no need to fear such an investigation.
As I said, let the chips fall where they may, and the charlatans be exposed.

“Defensive?” Not at all. My attitude is “dismissive.” This story is so insignificant, the denial industry should be embarrassed as much as (or more than) the CRU scientists.