re: #60 Unakite

Just my two cents. Seems that the Guardian is not considered to be a good source of scientific analysis when they post articles favorable to skeptics, but they are acceptable now:

“The Guardian’s analysis shows that a small group of just four of the scientists from among the dozens employed at the CRU were targeted in the sifting of email. They are: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Professor Keith Briffa, who studied tree rings; Tim Osborn, who worked on climate modelling for modern and archaeological data; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. All are either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, and almost all the rest are sent from mailing lists, such as the Met Office’s “scenarios” listing, to which at least one of the four would certainly belong.”

Where are you getting the Guardian in this conversation. Neither of the articles above are links to something in the Guardian. Do you have a link?