Regarding the most recent so called release, I like what Nature said about it. The journal described the further email release as a "poor sequel", and claimed that "it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context". - "A poor sequel". Nature 480 (7375): 6. December 2011. doi:10.1038/480006a. PMID 22129685.
Also Juliette Jowit and Leo Hickman of The Guardian said the new release was "an apparent attempt to undermine public support for international action to tackle climate change" with the start of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference scheduled in Durban, South Africa a week later. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8915689/Climategate-II-the-scientists-fight-back.html# http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/23/climate-scientists-hacked-emails-uea So again given the choice between the current scientific consensus and some mere political reich wing hacks with an agenda, I'll go for such journals as Nature, or organizations as the National Science Foundation or the Royal Society. On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really? Again I'll go with either the Royal Society's conclusions or > the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology's report. Or > the recent long term measurements that were reported by a former > climate denier, that almost exactly duplicated previous work. > > If anyone is guilty of lying and cheating, I'd go for the ones who > cracked the emails. They have an agenda and are not unwilling to > selectively edit and release material intended to put the global > warming issue in the worst possible light. > > The point is what does the science say? That is why I'll go for the > current consensus put forth by the AAS or the National Science > Foundation. They have much more credibility and integrity than some > script kiddies or political operatives with an agenda. > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Forbes is talking about the second dump of emails. >> And not bringing criminal charges does not clear them of wrong doing. >> They are guilty if hell of lying and cheating. That's not science. >> >> . >> >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> lets see given the choixe between the conclusions given by the Royal >>> Society and those of Forbes Magazine, an unbiased source no doubt, I >>> suspect that the choice is obvious to anyone with a bit of education >>> in the sciences. >>> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:345644 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
