re: #669 Aceofwhat?

Read the whole proceeding. The output ends up being vindicated. The damage to perception is fair game, IMHO, but this ain’t my blog…

The hearings were not to decide on the validity of the data or the science, the hearings were to look into the way the CRU handled FOI requests, how they handled the distribution or lack of distribution of material to other interested scientists and if they actually tried to keep material out of the hands of detractors.

There were occasional questions on the validity of the science, and the answers from the scientist were favorable. But those questions were not for establishing a pro or con on the science. That was not the purpose of this hearing.

There was nothing in this hearing that was designed to put the science on trial.