re: #271 JohninLondon

Charles

This is your blog - so you are entitled to post what you want with your own comments. Some disagree with you.

It really bothers you that Charles posts what you and “some” disagree with? Why is he uniquely not entitled to an opinion you disagree with. I happen to disagree with some parts of this issue, yet I’m happy to see Charles post his view.

Are you suggesting it’s controversial what he posts and this needs to be stopped? That of course is one of the claims against Prof. Phil Jones et. al., attempts to suppress contrary opinions. I take you’re bothered by this, yet you would do the same to Charles.

1 At the start of this you said the CRU stuff was a hack, defintely not a leak. Do you now accept that it looks more like a leak ? Which in English law would be difficult to be proven as a crime)

“Do you now accept” the true faith according to John? Why would someone need to accept “that it looks more like” a leak? In the absence of fact why should your speculatation be the only valid one?

2 You have been asked MANY times to comment on the Harry-file stuff. Which suggests that the whole coding of the data is a mess, that there were all sorts of unexplained “fudges” of the basic data. Have you ever responded to this ? I THINK NOT .

Geepers, ALL CAPS, killer point that. Actually Charles has mentioned the “Harry-file stuff” several times as well as the data manipulation allegations. That you MISSED IT shows that you are in fact uninformed of what is written here.

John, it’s amazing how little you comprehend yet how emphatic you are that your statements are correct. Why this obsession with what Charles posts or writes? Can you not accept one dissenting voice in your echo chamber?