re: #509 Obdicut

Walter, when sentences are truncated and without context, they are out of context.

I see that the article is the one that truncated them, and not you. However, they are still out of context quotes, and the quotes are still contradictory. One says they won’t examine the science, the other one says they will.

Given that CRU data has already been validated in a mindboggling assortment of ways, it’s a pretty moot point from the point of the science of AGW.

The PR aspect of it is only an issue because some people still continue to harp on about the scientists ‘unprofessionalism’, and doing things like pointing to investigations as if they are proof of actual problems.

If I had any confidence that those trumpeting these investigations would be honest enough to, say, also mention that Mann was cleared on all accusations that have finished investigation, with one still being investigated, I’d take this concern more seriously.

As it is, those who continually talk about the ‘problems’ at CRU— even though the science has been externally validated over and over— are, whether or not it is their desire, doing exactly what the deniers want them to.

I didn’t write the article, I didn’t quote anything out of context, if you don’t like the article, that’s not my fault. And it is fact, the Royal Society is investigating.

And the British MET office is opening a THREE YEAR INVESTIGATION on the CRU data.

If you have problems with that, then address those who are doing the investigations, not me, I’m just the messenger.