Re: Climategate?


"Poe" <haunted@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:7mo481F3iarcbU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This could get REALLY interesting. Of course, the hacked ("hacked"?) materials being released could be fraudulent, but if not, wow. Posting just a few links, the story seems to be tuning up everywhere now.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/emails_cru_east_anglia_climate.html:

Climate Skeptics Pounce On E-Mails Hackers Got From U.K. Scientists' Files


It depends on whether you think AGW is a political hoax or not. I say follow the money. There's a *lot* of it up for grabs and "redistribution."

The IPCC is an intergovernmental *review* panel. It does no research. "Consensus" at the IPCC is meaningless at the scientific level; particularly when there is great dissent in the scientific community as a whole.

Peer review is, likewise, meaningless when performed within a limited sphere of like-minded peers.

I can't recall when or where I first read/heard that data was cherry-picked, and that access to raw data was refused. I don't know whether that's true or not, but the leaked emails tend to support it.

It *is* going to be very interesting to follow this potential "Climategate."











.

Quantcast