re: #172 Charles

They don’t. If you read through the stolen emails, there is a LOT of debate and opposing viewpoints. The “shunning” is directed at propagandists and deniers.

There’s an army of propagandists on both sides of this thing. But what’s the distinction between a denier and someone who’s research and interpretation of data differ from this report?

Nobody “fudged” any data.

Tree-ring data was clearly fudged, uncooperative data points dropped with helpful data points preserved. This method is fine if it’s disclosed along with an explanation of what’s left out and what the justification is. Didn’t happen here.

Nobody hid any methods.

Yes they did, see above.

Examples, please?

Quote regarding death of John Daly, noted sceptic: “In an odd way this is cheering news.” Goulish by any standard.

Multiple references to the influencing of a particluar science journal not to publish anything contrary to climate change orthodoxy by Michaels or Gray or be shunned itself.

The real act of desperation is stealing emails, picking through them to find the ones that can be cast as “damning,” then releasing them right before the Copenhagen summit in a very clear attempt to delegitimize the summit itself. And even with all the cherry-picking, what they came up with is very, very weak stuff indeed.

I don’t like hackers or thieves but I dislike being manipulated and ultimately harmed by power-mad politicians and their paid sycophants even less. I believe what these emails have revealed is stronger stuff than you do. I certainly don’t want it swept under the rug. Thus all the comments. In any case, I’ve had a deep respect for you ever since you took CBS to task for their shenanigans. Guess that’s why this fires me up more than something usually could.