When the Sarah Palin emails – from her time as Alaska’s governor – were released on 10 June there was a media frenzy. And – much to the horror of many of our readers – the Guardian was right in the thick of it. It dispatched three journalists and a scanner to Juneau, the state capital, where they began mining the 13,000 emails (running to more than 24,000 printed pages) released following US freedom of information requests.
In 2009, they were against FOIA and disclosure of incriminating East-Anglia E-mails.
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is “value added” by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.
Whatever happened to the 13,000 emails? Did they find anything at all remotely incriminating, or even embarrassing?
Sarah Palin was so very nuts that she actually believed that it was legal for women to hold political office. Even the Washington Post is aghast at that. Next thing you know she’ll be claiming that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a Democrat.
Who ever said the left wing of politics was honest?
Science is scutiny by its very definition.
“scrutiny”. Sorry about that.
You were almost right the first time – “scutiny” from the latin “scutum”, a shield. AGW supporting scientists certainly have their shields up. Can’t let any scrutiny see through the “scutiny”.