Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
“discovered the problem”
i will contend that their use of the definite, as opposed to indefinite, article demonstrates they were aware of ‘the problem’
has anyone here bothered to read the context of that?
hmm. didn’t think so.
And this does refer to the one area where most people agree that there was behavior unbecoming of a scientist. funny how some people have used this to assert that they deleted many emails showing the fraud they had all committed. Kind of like those 8 million emails Cheney lost when he was not part of the executive branch.
By you folks must have been up in arms about that one, if emails about FOI get you riled up.
What does Cheney have to do with this?
He does it because he wants to DEFLECT from your blog post.
Since it is apparent that he can not make a counterpoint,he deflects instead.In the dumb effort to support his felonious buddies.
That is why they are losing debates so easily.They have no credible case to back their AGW goofola.
In which case the fraud will be over soon.
Like I have said repeatedly you have amassed so much evidence of fraud and lies and just downright evil, there is no way it can continue.
I have not deflected anything. i explained my understanding, Mike presented his conspiracy fraud view, and that all the investigations are fraudulent, and that even the paper he posted regarding Mann’s totally discredited hockey stick is still supported by the NAS, referring to other research that also supports that view.
I am waiting for the indictments. “How is that Cuccinelli thing goin for ya?”
TonyD:
You will always follow what you have been told to believe. I have been watching this game played out for years so I see it from a different perspective.
Sorry Mike,
I have read the emails. I READ THEM. I READ this one. I read them before anyone told me what to believe. Some of them seemed quite damning. I then very carefully read the comments on them from various perspectives. Over and over again the explanations afford by the denier camp were shown to be disingenuous distortions, and the explanations from the principles made perfect sense. In this kind of situation it is almost impossible to cover up real lies or real conspiracy. there is just too much data and too much historical record to invent lies that really correspond consistently with years of emails.
Inconsistencies multiply and become totally untenable. The different parties cannot keep their made up stories straight. it all falls apart. That is not the case with the emails. the breeches of ethics were clear and could not be explained away, and there was no real attempt to do so. The various investigations noted them and for the most part agreed on what they were. Their conclusions were very similar to my conclusions BEFORE I read their conclusions.
that is pretty much the OPPOSITE of definition of “following what I have been told to believe.
And judge, the Cheney line of questioning went to motive.
You are providing entertainment on this one. You should really rethink your view of the non independent non investigative inquires.
You either lead a sheltered life or just have your head firmly planted in your nether region.
I do not recall any e-mails with Dick Cheney’s name on them at the UEA among the files that were released last year!
Tony
With how you view Antonino Zichichi and Freeman Dyson I think I’m not going to trust your interpretation of ClimateGate emails.
Amino
you have NO CLUE how I view Dyson. this in spite of the fact that i have repeatedly said I have tremendous respect for him, and always think his views are worth considering. I have repeatedly asked if you wanted to discuss the content of this thoughts and you have never responded.
If that is how you gauge peoples views I am certainly NOT going to trust your views on the climate-gate emails,
Of course this is another case of no one engaging what i actually say. But I am getting quite comfortable with that.
As for Zichichi, you didn’t even know about Dirac and positrons, so you lost a little credibility there as well.
Of course Mike if the investigations were all white washes and i was given a post temporal mind wipe so that my conclusions would fit with theirs, there is really no hope for you. Each of you will have your brains reprogrammed to accept ACC and in a few years no one will ever remember that there was any opposition, and the coming ice age will have been predicted for centuries.
Mike,
you didn’t read any Cheney files because the were DELETED!
Jones had those deleted also?
Tony, your knee jerk reflex is telling. As far as I know, Cheney didn’t have anything to do with the climate debate in either words or money, on either side. Yet, you instinctively tie Cheney with Jones? This is probably a blessing in disguise! This is reminiscent of a post earlier today. I’m guessing you can explain both this and your seemingly inexplicable attachment to global temps to fiscal policy. Please indulge me and connect the dots, if you will?
“But tell Congress that the planet is in peril because of global warming (plenty of proof) and that lavishing undeserved tax breaks on less than 5 percent of the wealthiest Americans is unaffordable (plenty of proof),……..”
Is it being asserted that the CAGW issue is a left/right issue? Because, if it is, this explains plenty. See, I’m finding more and more lately, that it has much to do with wealth redistribution than actual concern over the inhabitants of the earth.
But, I’d like to be clear about what we’re arguing. Is it global temps or are we discussing an ex-vice-president? Or, is it, as I’m seeing lately, really a divergence of the same old argument of earning and caring?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m more than happy to discuss any of the above, I just want to be clear about what we’re discussing.
The fact that you would call folks skeptical of AGW, ACC etc, as deniers, shows that your read of the e-mails was, at best, astigmatic.
SUYTS,
PLEASE refresh my memory on where I have tied fiscal policy to global temps? It is fascinating to me that you insist I have an “inexplicable attachment to global temps to fiscal policy”, when as far as I know we have never discussed the issue. I do have thoughts on that, and maybe you are referring to my suggesting that there be SOME action now. That is in line with the more conservative economists on the issue. Again I am quite confident that you don’t have a clue about my politic social or economic beliefs.
YOu keep using the term CAGW, whereas I use the ACC. I have never used the term, so why do you continue to say CAGW is an issue of left and right. I believe ACC is an issue of the extreme right and a few extreme left and most of the scientific community.
Of course you are finding that ACC has to do with wealth redistribution. It does. ALL services have to do with wealth redistribution. That is why NY and CA subsidize the infrastructure in Mississippi. It is why my father gets free medical care after being run over by a taxi. There are all sorts of ways modern society redistributes wealth. You disapprove of this one because you attribute motives where you want to. I doubt you attribute them to even more convincing cases that do not fit your ideology. That was why I brought up Cheney. it had nothing to do with ACC. It has to do with deleted emails.
Funny that you failed to back up your claim that Steve fails to read the context of that fully quoted e-mails.
LOL
Jones was either lead author or contributing author to two papers in 1990 regarding UHI. One claimed UHI has no effect as shown by a study done in China and the other shows a definite effect from UHI.
Guess which one they promote.
They knew and discussed the various problems and Jones proved that in his reply when asked for data. “You only want the data to try to find something wrong”!
That one statement removed Jones from the scientific community and discredited all his work and that of the organization he is associated with! It also speaks volumes for those that support his actions!
Actually my interpretation is that Mcintyre WAS only interested in finding things wrong.
and it in no way removes Jones from the scientific community. Publishing falsified data would. Trying to keep information from people you consider enemies, who you are convinced are going to distort your findings may not be the most ethical behavior but it is quite understandable. CA always had access to raw data to make their own determinations. After All CA STILL argues that hide the decline means something underhanded. CA makes claims about things in a blog without going through peer review (actually didn’t they just publish something).
Again I am not saying I think he was right or this was ethical, but it is the real world and scientists are humans and believe it or not there are people who are obsessed with proving ACC to be wrong, and they will go to great lengths to undermine it in any way that they can.
Mann has also explained repeatedly his reconstructions, and they have been published by scientific journals and there have been others that show similar results. And yes he does know there are problems with the proxies, yet scientists actually still do work in sciences that are historically dependent and refine their results as techniques and tools improve.
This is the same in biology with evolution. And physics with cosmology.
Mann’s work has always shown the LIE and there is no clear picture of the magnitude of MWP.
Those damn trees worked for a 1,000 years and quit in 1960.
Steve,
Holy COW you actually get it now!
I am proud of you. Hold onto that thought.
Remember it is density we are talking about not width.
There may be an answer in the future.
Manhattan must be about to drown.
Boy I am dense.
You are baiting me. I get it. OK, I am ignoring the extraneous manhattan comment. I won’t think about it. I won’t respond. I will NOT think about Manhattan….
They have all been absolutely correct about their science. Manhattan is underwater, snow is a thing of the past and the Earth is heating out of control.
Tony Duncan says:
December 16, 2010 at 4:16 am
Actually my interpretation is that Mcintyre WAS only interested in finding things wrong.
Of course that’s your interpretation. You are biased.
TonyD:
You definitely have your head firmly planted. You appear to get the entire situation AFU. I do not know where to start to point you in the right direction.
Lets start with, it was not CA he was responding to.
BCPs are useless as proxies and Mann’s methods produced the Hockey stick.
NAS advised him not to use BCPs for future reconstructions and those pesky trees are still around and being used.
You must have also missed the “Censored” file on Mann’s web site! It showed the true value of Mann’s reconstructions.
If the tree reconstructions do not match a recent period of warmth then it is most likely they do not match periods of similar temperatures in the past.
The tree line reconstructions from the same regions showed the opposite of what was recovered from the tee rings.
Science is about trying to find something wrong with a proposed hypothesis / opinion.
Mike, then you are talking about conscious fraud. And a conspiracy to perpetuate that fraud and we are back to the thousands of honest scientists that will very quickly overturn all this fraud because they are not all in thrall to grant money or some Gaian ideology
You can’t have it both ways Mike. If it is so obvious and so clear and so prevalent, then it HAS to be fraud and a conspiracy. the
other reconstructions that are similar then are also fraudulent.
In every peer review I’ve done, that was my job…to find what was wrong. In every poster and oral presentation I’ve given at conferences, the comments I appreciated the most were the ones where they showed me what I was doing wrong. And when I get peer review comments, the ones that point out things that are wrong end up making my work all that much stronger.
So what’s wrong with looking for things that are wrong and voicing the error(s) when found?
-Scott
Scott,
Absolutely, couldn’t have said it better myself.
But apparently in climate science all the peer review is designed to not point out anything wrong, but just to reinforce the idea that ACC s happening. People here believe that is not happening in climate science yet somehow they don’t believe it is a conspiracy.
What you are NOT supposed to do in peer review, is distort and confuse issues ignore inconvenient facts and take them out of context. That is why peer review has been more effective at advancing science over the last few generations than blogs or newspapers.
Mike,
you are right, I misread what you were discussing.
Ok, that is ate least FOUR times I have admitted I was wrong about something! But my response to your comment is still the same. if there is fraud of the type you are discussing then it will come out.
I do not know enough about the science of tree ring density. and the myriad factors involved. If McIntyre is right, and he obviously knows a lot more about this than I do he should publish his proof of fraud, have other experts analyze his findings and we can find out what is really going on. If they WON’T publish McIntyre and it is obvious he is right, then honest scientists will see the conspiracy and do something about it.
Ignore Manhattan, ignore Manhattan,
So Steve what scientist has said there would be no snow by 2010? Actually find me any crackpot environmentalist who has said that?
And I think almost all scientists say there will no tbe a runaway greenhouse effect, partly because of that logarithm graph that Peter pointed out.
Yup those ACC whacko’s sure exaggerate. (did NOT mention Manhattan)
“Global warming” does predict that winters will start later and end sooner. Everyone in the world can see that prediction is not working out. Winters have been getting worse for 5 years in a row. This failed prediction is one more piece of evidence that the “manmade global warming” hypothesis is not a valid hypothesis and must be discarded.
Sure you want use to ignore James Hansen’s prediction of Manhattan below his window being underwater. It didn’t happen so that makes the “grandfather of global warming” wrong. Can’t have that, can we.
Is it ok to mention the exaggerations in all of Al Gore’s movie? Or are those off limits too?
Is it ok to mention the exaggeration in Michael Mann’s paper about the year 1998 and the decade of the 90’s likely being the warmest in at least a millennium? Or is that a no-no too?
Not sure what we can talk about in your world.
Are Stephen Schneider’s exaggerations fair game? Jus wonrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZLbFm-X3Q
This video is just a 17 second segment of Stephen Schneider end of the world talk—if that’s ok with you Tony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YNcFldcjA
James Hansen was a science advisor for Al Gore’s movie.
But don’t worry, not a peep about Manhattan.
Amino,
you are kidding me?
WHAT exaggerations?
the first clip is mostly the bizarre tv show with leonard Nimoy. remember they hired him so it would give credence to shows on Eric Von Daniken, and UFO abductions.
we have gone OVER this repeatedly. Schieder was worried about cooling because of the ACCURATE observed cooling, and because of aerosols that limited solar radiation from heating the world. It was a reasonable hypothesis. and he was TOTALLY aware of ACC and just thought it would be overwhelmed by effect of the aerosols. pollution decreased significantly and he was wrong about the relative strength of effect as well.
as for the second clip, maybe he is exaggerating, maybe not. We don’t know, and if the Earth does warm 3°C then he will quite possibly be right.
As for Hansen’s Manahattan underwater. How can you be so obsessed by a non public statement that has NO correlation to anything he has ever written or stated publicly. Sure that was an exaggeration, and if he had said it at his congressional hearing it would be totally valid to attack it alarmist garbage.
And Al gore’s movie. the vast majority is accurate. There are things implied and relations that I think are somewhat disingenuous, but there is very little in it that is flat out wrong.
His whole movie is MUCH more accurate than that piece of propaganda that so obviously takes Schneiders statements out of context and paints this evil picture of Schneider REFUSING to allow his interview to be shown. I assume it is that he found out who did the interview and that they would only put what they wanted people to see. As it was they had an actor. And they give him three lines out of an entire interview.
As for MAnn, we don’t KNOW whether the WMP was warmer than the 90’s. We certainly didn’t know it in 1998, and people are still arguing about it. And even if he is wrong, that does not in itself affect the validity of ACC.
Your presenting these things about issues I know about and that you know I know about raises serious questions ability to integrate information.
Stephen Schneider was in the show. What is your point?
You must not know who Stephen Schneider is.
Tony Duncan says:
December 16, 2010 at 5:32 am
as for the second clip, maybe he is exaggerating, maybe not.
I see. You are finally revealing your true colors.
“So Steve what scientist has said there would be no snow by 2010?”
——————————————————————
Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia:
“within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
—————————————————————
Eric,
Very good. I stand corrected. That is a scientist saying something that is not supported by real science. It is of course not saying no snow by 2010, but taking one short term trend and extrapolating it linearly is a foolish thing to do.
You did not take it out of context, you did not exaggerate. I am impressed!
of course he also said this which is more reasonable
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
Tony, I am surprised you are wasting your time juggling, post responses about the Manhattan remark. A remark that is not peer reviewed.
Just for my opinion, I’ll be clear. Adjusting temperatures constantly in only one direction to support a theory is biased and for me, fraud.
truthsword,
I agree with you. i have been saying if all this is true then it is massive fraud pure and simple and the responsible scientists and organizations should be held responsible.
Just get control of the peer review process and then prosecute after proving that all these adjustments were made unscientifically.
The Nixon White House investigated itself thoroughly.
the Nixon whitehouse DID investigate itself,
And Nixon FIRED the investigators! his handpicked ones!
and his conspiracy only involved a small number of people and they could NOT get all the lies in a row to fool anyone. (well except for the people like Cheney and Rumsfeld who still believe Nixon was railroaded and he did nothing wrong, because we NEED a strong president).
another analogy that is mostly useless for this situation.
Please try to supply an analogy that is marginally consistent with the reality of the ACC fraud.
Amino,
I know who Stephan Schneider is and i know what he wrote.
What about my explanation of his views is incorrect?
you are right I AM showing my true colors. I am not sure if his predictions for the future are correct because we haven’t arrived there yet, and I am not convinced that the high end predictions of warming and the consequences of those predictions are accurate.
Amino
So the biologists are all in on the conspiracy too I see!
“Winters have been getting worse for 5 years in a row. This failed prediction is one more piece of evidence that the “manmade global warming” hypothesis is not a valid hypothesis and must be discarded.
Mann knows there are major problems with all his proxy reconstructions and that is evident by his statements and actions. That removes Mann and his supporters from the scientific community!
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”
National Academy of Science report on the Mann Hockey Stick paper, page 4
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
Amino,
you are AMAZING.
Did you read the paper.
My God .read the paper again, and focus on the actual meaning of the words. ALL the words. I didn’t see anything here about the fraud that Mike just went on about. All I see is a paper saying that there are uncertainties.
you cherry pick that line, and I can cherry pick this one. this article says almost EXACTLY what I posted in response to Mike.
this is getting fun again!
“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
See if I wasn’t interested in reality I would just pull out things that supported what I desperately wanted to believe. But I actually read the WHOLE thing and adjust my opinions based on ALL the information.
lol, I’m confused now…….is it ok to delete publicly owned e-mails or not? Is it ok to conspire to do so? I thought there were laws regarding this, but perhaps I was wrong. Maybe because someone else may have done something similar that makes it ok?
I didn’t know that these were “publicly owned” emails, and i don’t know what the CRU policy was regarding deleting emails. I read a bit of the investigations and I don’t remember if this was an issue that was brought up.
I do know that the Cheney deleted emails would be a crime if it was shown that they were deleted to hide conspiracy or fraud or obstruct justice.
You express ignorance in the first paragraph yet draw conclusions.
You express ignorance in the second paragraph yet draw conclusions.
Oh wait, you are being consistent.
Deebee,
You have it a little backwards. IF the CRU had a policy that said one could NOT delete those emais, then there is at least an ethical breach there, possibly more. I read some fot he investigations, and i do not remember seeing anything to the effect that deleting emails would have been a violation. I am happy to be corrected if any has the information.
I am pretty confident that the administration purposefully deleting emails would be a violation of federal law, especially if there was evidence that it was done to obstruct justice.
Well, here is the EAU policy:
“Guidance for staff
6 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information
•The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA
•A request for information must be answered within 20 working days
•If you receive a request for information which mentions FOI, is not information you routinely provide, is unusual, or you are unsure of, you should pass the request to your FOIA contact or the Information Policy and Compliance Manager
•You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there
•As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional
•It is a criminal offence to destroy, conceal or amend emails or other record that has been requested under the Act and you may be liable for a fine if you do so”
See:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/guidance
Please take note of the last bulleted item regarding emails. The criminal investigation found that Jones had violated this policy, but did not prosecute due to a statute of limitations, or in other words – successfully violating the law.
Do you need more to call this an “ethical violation”, or do you have more excuses?
Glacier man,
thanks for the info.
no I think that sums it up pretty clearly.
As I have said repeatedly this was the one area that there was clear agreement about ethical violations regarding FOI.
that is by no means the whole story but it was clearly wrong in many ways.
Where do you get the idea that I have ever made excuses about this behavior? I have given explanations that fit the facts, but I have never said that those explanations made what they did acceptable.
It is this type of unfounded accusation when I have been very clear from the beginning that make other assertions form people on this blog not things I am prone to just believe without checking.
Tony D
I am not accusing you of saying what they did was acceptable, but I have inferred from some of your posts that you are excusing much of what was included in the CRU emails. It may be shades of gray or nuance to you, but I think it is a pretty big deal. One documented case of unethical behavior (actually illegal but for the statute of limitations of 6 months – total bs by the way) really says a lot.
Anyway, glad to see we agree on something.
glacierman,
I am glad we agree on something too!
Troy Duncan writes this fact less crap,like all of his others in this comment thread.
“I have read the emails. I READ THEM. I READ this one. I read them before anyone told me what to believe. Some of them seemed quite damning. I then very carefully read the comments on them from various perspectives. Over and over again the explanations afford by the denier camp were shown to be disingenuous distortions, and the explanations from the principles made perfect sense. In this kind of situation it is almost impossible to cover up real lies or real conspiracy. there is just too much data and too much historical record to invent lies that really correspond consistently with years of emails.”
I have yet to see evidence that Steve allegedly misleads the CONTEXT of the two e-mails,that are fully posted.You never provide factual evidence.
Your very first comment in this thread.
“has anyone here bothered to read the context of that?”
hmm. didn’t think so.”
You have nothing and that is why you are full of crap.
@ Tony
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared….”
No we wont – “Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that shovel in your hand?”
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather
““a very rare and exciting event” (snow)
Nah, I’m cold, and there are wolves after me. [Howling is heard in the distance]
Stop feeding the trolls, dammit!
It’s fun to watch’em scramble after the crumbs… especially this one, who digs a deeper hole with every word. If liberals ever learned the First Rule of Holes, we would have no entertainment.
Tony Duncan says:
December 16, 2010 at 4:26 am
Sorry Mike,
I have read the emails. I READ THEM. I READ this one.
Sorry Tony, the question is not whether you READ them. Millions of us have. The question is whether you UNDERSTOOD what you read. Your first post clearly indicates you did not.
Those damn trees worked for a 1,000 years and quit in 1960.
Tony Duncan says:
December 16, 2010 at 4:28 am
Steve,
Holy COW you actually get it now!
Why? Why did they stop working?
why did they stop working?
My guess is that God wanted to give you guys ammunition, so he intervened to make them no longer fit the temperatures.
What is your guess?
Guess? That appears to be all you are doing. Which is fine. I guess when I play the lottery. I do not guess in science. I follow the scientific method.
So God did it. And you can prove that how?
Or is it you just DO NOT KNOW? Be Honest!
Tony Duncan says:
December 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Tony, Idiots use ACC since the initials are copyrighted and have no relation to AGW, CAGW or GCD. Call the Atlantic Coast Conference about legal use of their name and symbols. Long before their was a ponzi scheme dealing with global temperature, the ACC was around.
Phil,
Well, you better get on those ACC lawyers to sue me.
I am really upset about this.
You are right again, that I cannot prove that God did it. it seemed like the null hypothesis though.
Your humor is lacking, but I am sure your faith in your “God” is strong. All religions require that, as does Mann and Jones and Gore.
Maybe Tony thinks this is a web site dedicated to talking about Collage sports!
Air Combat Command also uses the acronym.
Animal Crossing Communities used it for a while but changed their name to Animal Crossing City Folk.
Association of Corporate Counsel
American Chemistry Counsel
Automotive Custom Carpets
Airports Consultants Counsel
Sorry Tony Your use does not exist in the commonly used acronyms list.
We will just have to refer to it as FUBAR or SNAFU as those have a better descriptive value for what you provide.
Tony Duncan says:
December 17, 2010 at 3:39 pm
CRU may not have, but as a government funded organization, they had to follow government regulations – which did have such a rule. It is SOP for anyone getting government money due to the FOI(A) (no A in England).
Tony Duncan says:
December 17, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Well, I finally agree with you on something! However, you seem to be under the (false) impression that fraud is exposed magically by elves or something. Hardly. The fraud will come out (it does not have to be as massive as you seem to think), but only after people like McIntyre, McKittrick, O’Donnel, et. al. continue to expose the lies and half truths that the fraud must perpetuate in order to survive.
In other words, if no one does anything, the fraud will not come out. Since some are actually doing the correct thing (being skeptics), it will eventually. The question is (in light of the outcry for one media site to actually do REAL Journalism) will the media ever report it? Their willing or unwilling complicity in the fraud makes it harder to disseminate it even when the fraud is exposed.