Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[mybrainhurts]

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

[Somewhatfoolish]

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

[odyssey2200]

MODS

Can you change the title of the thread, please as thee was nothing independent about the enquiry!

[mybrainhurts]

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

[odyssey2200]

Somewhatfoolish said:

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus

None so blind.....

FYI science does not work by Consensus.

[Somewhatfoolish]

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

[Somewhatfoolish]

odyssey2200 said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus

None so blind.....

FYI science does not work by Consensus.

Correct. In fact, by definition the consensus is always at least a bit wrong.

But the consensus is the correct opinion to base policy upon unless one has a very, very good reason to think that the consensus is incorrect. With regard to climate change that would mean that one is in a far better position to evaluate the evidence than the climate scientists. That's rubbish.

[mybrainhurts]

odyssey2200 said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus

None so blind.....

FYI science does not work by Consensus.

Have you noticed all the True Believers on here protest, at some stage, that their underlying instinct is with the sceptical view....BUT

I reckon they picked it up from the I'm not a racist, but brigade...

[mybrainhurts]

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

[Diderot]

Somewhatfoolish said:

odyssey2200 said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus

None so blind.....

FYI science does not work by Consensus.

Correct. In fact, by definition the consensus is always at least a bit wrong.

But the consensus is the correct opinion to base policy upon unless one has a very, very good reason to think that the consensus is incorrect. With regard to climate change that would mean that one is in a far better position to evaluate the evidence than the climate scientists. That's rubbish.

You are somewhat foolish, aicmfp.

[Somewhatfoolish]

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

[Somewhatfoolish]

But on the other hand I've seen a huge amount of attacks that make no sense at all...

[hidetheelephants]

I read a lot of stuff which suggested that the chaps at UEA were variously; naive, arrogant, secretive, clique-y, unprofessional, technically lawbreaking, and finally unwittingly and then wittingly guilty of hubris. It's all in the perspective I guess.

[mybrainhurts]

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

Thought so...

Try reading some more...

[Somewhatfoolish]

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

Thought so...

Try reading some more...

Better idea. Link me to the VERY WORST email. And I'll look at it.

[mybrainhurts]

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

Thought so...

Try reading some more...

Better idea. Link me to the VERY WORST email. And I'll look at it.

I've probably not seen it yet...

If you're going to rummage around, this will help you search...

http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php


Edit...silly me, this is not your current mission, is it?

Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 19th April 00:05

[Somewhatfoolish]

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

Thought so...

Try reading some more...

Better idea. Link me to the VERY WORST email. And I'll look at it.

I've probably not seen it yet...

If you're going to rummage around, this will help you search...

http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php


Edit...silly me, that's not your current mission, is it?

Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 19th April 00:04

Correct. It's not. YOU search for it and link me to it.

[mybrainhurts]

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

Thought so...

Try reading some more...

Better idea. Link me to the VERY WORST email. And I'll look at it.

I've probably not seen it yet...

If you're going to rummage around, this will help you search...

http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php


Edit...silly me, that's not your current mission, is it?

Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 19th April 00:04

Correct. It's not. YOU search for it and link me to it.

You seem to think my task is to convince you.

It is not.

You said you found "nothing". I'm giving you the tool to find something, if you so wish.

But you don't, do you..?

[Somewhatfoolish]

(If it makes things easier, you don't have to link to the ABSOLUTE WORST email there. Just give me a really, really bad one)

[Somewhatfoolish]

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

mybrainhurts said:

ludo, a word...

Why do you keep typing skeptics?

Are you American, or dumb, or both...?

It's an excellent point that, because spelled with either 'k' or 'c' the majority of the hardcore s(k/c)eptics are not s(c/k)eptical at all... they're pretty credulous in fact. Very kind of you

BJWoods, my viewpoint is very simple. I will accept what the scientific consensus is. Until "Climategate", as it is termed, I was under the impression that there was significant uncertainty. As someone else trained in the sciences and forced, possibly uniquely, through both my profession and philisophical beliefs to see the world as essentially chaotic, if not entirely random, I was under the impression that whatever we could deduce about the past we were unable to predict the future reasonably.

Still, to an extent, I believe that, for what it's worth. No climate models properly take into account biological uncertainty - and if take all global warming as entirely anthropogenic it refutes itself, for who knows if for example photosynthesis becomes more efficient and respiration less so in future life forms if the composition of the atmosphere changes? I don't but I can see it.

But when those emails did come out, and it was apparent to me that they showed nothing, despite the shrillness in the blogosphere, I began to recognise the same kinds of arguments that creationists show towards biologists and geologists; homeopaths use against doctors, and so on.

I saw no smoking gun.

Therefore I will side with the scientific consensus - and it does exist until I see enough reputable people saying it doesn't, not screen-names on pistonheads - and try to work towards a sensible government response (that is to say minimal if not non existent).

Nice try...

You're a plant, aren't you...?

If not, how much time did you spend with the emails...?

Yeah, that's right, you got me.

I'm probably far less of a left winger than you...

Are you going to answer the question..?

How long did you spend with the emails...?

And how did you conclude they showed "nothing"...?

Probably around an hour. I didn't download or look through the entire zip file, I look at a "best of" summary somewhere a bit after they were leaked, and subsequently looked at another around a month after it.

I haven't seen anything remotely wrong headed. I've seen things that taken out of context may look odd to the scientifically ignorant, but nothing else.

Thought so...

Try reading some more...

Better idea. Link me to the VERY WORST email. And I'll look at it.

I've probably not seen it yet...

If you're going to rummage around, this will help you search...

http://www.climate-gate.org/index.php


Edit...silly me, that's not your current mission, is it?

Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 19th April 00:04

Correct. It's not. YOU search for it and link me to it.

You seem to think my task is to convince you.

It is not.

You said you found "nothing". I'm giving you the tool to find something, if you so wish.

But you don't, do you..?

Actually the burden of proof is reasonably upon you - again we come back to the consensus here...

Just give me a link to a really nasty email.