Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
And if this is only a sample of the full content of hacked data, then there could be even more embarrassing emails we haven't seen. If this is the case, then posts like this...

Originally posted by melatonin

...are completely irrelevant. But then again, who didn't expect some posters here to quickly jump to the defense of these "scientists".

Not actually jumping to their defence, really. If there is evidence of scientific fraud they should be treated like any other scientist who does the same.

I'm actually waiting for the smoking gun. We've already had the claims of fraud/hoax/nail in coffins blah blah round the echo-chamber, but no real evidence (reflects more on the accusers than those the emails were stolen from). Just ambiguous claims, quote-mining, semantic games, and efforts to suggest scientific fraud when no evidence is present. Pretty disappointing.

I'm actually surprised, though, this is meant to be the centre of the conspiracy universe, yet all I mainly see are people depending on outside news articles. So passive.

Thousands of emails involving the personal and private thoughts of major figures in climate science and this is all you have? A field of science that supposedly involves one of the biggest frauds/conspiracies ever (thousands of scientists around the world ongoing for decades)? You need to look for evidence of the supersecret mail server! The real evidence must be there...

Dig deep guys!


[edit on 22-11-2009 by melatonin]

Some points below you may find relevant to the ongoing debate:

- In UK academic institutions employer is allowed to read employee's work emails. I remember a memo circulating in UK academia about that. Academia is funded by the public money. Researchers (Research Assistant/Associate, Research Fellow, technician, etc) can be funded by both public and commercial grants but permanent academic staff is 100% funded by public money. Almost always, the results of the research are to be disseminated to the public. Therefore public is allowed access to ALL research data and, technically, to work emails of academics.

- Different sciences and topics within sciences have their own jargon (not used in papers, only informally). I know, used many strange words myself in a different area of science. it is true that the word trick can be used benevolently. it may relate to a technique to reduce noise or speed up calculation, etc. Even word cheat may have an explanation - meaning approximation, interpolation or using simulated data because of lack of real data, however this should be clearly stated in the mentioned paper in an unambiguous language. so it's a matter of checking if indeed the paper points out to assumptions or shortcuts taken in the discussion of results. this should be obvious even to a casual reader.

- There are many subtle incentives in the academic world which would stop some scientists from aggressively criticizing important others. The careers of all scientists depend, to a different extent, on (a) playing the politics game, (b) source of funding, (c) ability to publish in top journals. All these important to a scientist factors (a, b, c) are managed (read controlled) by a small group of people, advisors of the research counsel, editors of journals, directors of various influential centers of science, leading scientists on the topic, etc. If unthinkable happens and this small group of people decides to steer the science is a particular direction, then I don't see how this direction can be changed by the much larger group which is lower in the hierarchy. By the way, these guys are often best mates and so called steering committees in different science topics are full of the same small group of people. The only thing that stops this collusion from happening is the integrity of these people. Therefore the whole argument about who's honest is reduced down to the trust (belief or faith) in a small group of top people, scientific elite.

- Many projects in recent years in the UK were funded by various EU bureaucratic bodies. Some scientists don’t like their funding because of the mountains of bureaucracy required from scientists, which leaves little time for actual research. But others love it because it’s easy money and you don’t have to have much of a deliverable, if you play the politics right.

- The funding is usually associated with specific calls, goals of which already state the problem as given. For example, scientists are invited to bid with interesting research proposals that tackle global worming. Naturally, if you want tot get funding you will put the correct words in the proposal. Therefore it is a matter of public record, which can be checked by obtaining the list of topics in calls from EU and UK research councils.

All the above is my personal first hand experience, so no references of sort. But if anyone is desperate I can try and find the references to what I said.

Originally posted by the_denv
these emails and documents work best if used/viewed on a UNIX or Linux based Operating System. [...] there are various other files, raw files and files that say "Video CD Movie" or just plain "File"; for example in this directory: "...FOIA\documents\briffa-treering-external\belfast\garrybog\pine\gb5fil". Filetype: FILE.

It would be interesting to see what the file named "gb5fil" would contain. This file is apparently holding information regarding my city Belfast.

Don't know for sure what to use for some of the raw files. However, if you go to the CRU's Temperature website, they have several datasets for ftp download. It points to programs you can use to read the data.

Perhaps some of those progams will work with the various files from the Leak / hack?

NetCDF format is read by many commercial data-processing packages (eg. IDL) and public-domain software (eg. ncview, a NetCDF viewer, and NCL, a scriptable data-manipulation and visualisation package)

[edit on 11/22/09 by makeitso]

5. In this connection, however, I am somewhat surprised by the
paper prepared by you and Wigley for the May 21 seminar. Figure
3(a) shows only the (positive) 50-year linear trend, but not the
zero and negative trends of figure 10 in your Climate Dynamics
paper. I would judge that the most relevant trend line should be
one starting around 1960 when data coverage increased globally.

in the 'docs' folder: ippc-santer2.txt, from 1996, btw.


comments withheld, i can imagine a little apologetic fiction all by myself anyways. the first few paragraphs are interesting as well... so d/l if you haven't already and confirm for yourselves.

[edit on 2009.11.22 by Long Lance]

Just to add fuel to fire, from a blog post:
noconsensus.wordpress.com...

CO2 is “Ultimately A political decision”

Posted by Jeff Id on November 22, 2009


This is absolutely stunning.

We have to think back to all the people who told us over the years that the IPCC is a “scientific organization” . This particular email has some huge implications in it which you really have to read a few times before you can close your jaw. I’ll bold some of the really shocking bits at the top but the rest is for you to work out.

If nothing else, read the first paragraph and try and wrap your head around -first, the concept and second, the beating down of others reasonable points. F…ing amazing.

From: Dave S
To: Shrikant J
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)

I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.

If you want to do ‘realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).

‘Advice’ will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.

Dave

On Sun, 16
May 1999, Shrikant [snip] wrote:

> Friends,
>
> I’m enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using
> the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model
> runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
> and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to
> use different data will be hard to explain.
>
>
> Shrikant
>
> Dr. Shrikant

Well I’ll give my interpretation of email number 0926947295.txt anyway. This appears to be an OBVIOUS and open collusion by IPCC heads to again lie to policy makers about the nature and understanding of CO2. They browbeat reasoned opinion in exchange for results. This email should be headlines across the world instead of this little blog. They should be making a hell of a lot of phone calls to these scientists for explanation if the reporters had the guts.

What is going on when the press doesn’t report this stuff!! Thirty years ago this would have gotten slaughtered in the press. What are the reporters doing with their brains???!!

Original article from the 'The Air Vent' Blog

Originally posted by Shirakawa
Just to add fuel to fire, from a blog post:
noconsensus.wordpress.com...

CO2 is “Ultimately A political decision”

Posted by Jeff Id on November 22, 2009


This is absolutely stunning.

Actually pretty banal, but that requires at least a basic understanding of the issue.

In projecting models they use different scenarios of future emissions of GHGs. You see, until we have a time machine no-one knows at what levels, for example, the US will be releasing CO2 in 2050. Therefore models use different scenarios of future global emissions - business as usual, maintained levels, decreasing levels etc. Each hopes to represent potential futures for our emissions and the resulting consequences.

Which of those futures comes to pass is a political decision. As it depends on whether we act and to what level we act on our emissions of GHGs, which is not under the control of the scientists but is surely a political issue?

You do understand how ridiculous interpreting such comments as something nefarious looks? This is quite a teapot tempest.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


let's see

• the scenarios aren't realistic and they know it so they 'do not have high coinfidence (sic, lol) in GHG projections'
  
• let's see what the politicos do first
  
• all models must be made to agree, so 'if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong'
  

if they're merely slaving their results to one 'party line' (at any level) then there is in fact only one single research team working in the entire field. such a situation does not seem to mirror public perception of the process, of course, which means the mail is a valid example. there are better ones, no doubt, we've seen enough mails about people asking question only to be stonewalled (the dendrologist), people replicating tricks to hide something and generally some modest internal dissent, which would of course have been ridiculed had it happened in the open.

the picture is clear enough and no amount of whitewash will help. ignoring it will of course do the trick, because if one can slip the 'fed' in during the xmas holidays, anything goes. still those who dare to look will see.

[edit on 2009.11.22 by Long Lance]

Do you think Al Gore leaked the stuff? It's doing a lot of damage to the deniers' argument.

In any case, Al Gore must be laughing his butt off at this.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by rizla]

Are we actually arguing that climate change is NOT happening???

Not so long ago the conspiracy would have been flipped, and we'd be screaming that this is an big business oil and political conspiracy against the truth (that climate change is happening).

Im sure a lot of the readers of ATS are from all around the world, and some might not have seen or felt any difference in the past twenty years or so.

In Australia, where I live, just recently in the past couple of days we have had the hottest days on record for spring time, everybody complains what happened to spring? Then we have a wild thunderstorm, followed by bushfires.

Look down here we see and feel the effects, its much different than it was only twenty years ago when i remember. We now are, by law, restricted in our water usage, we have bushfires worse than ever in history but more firefighters and better firefighting technology.

All I've read from these emails seems to compliment the scientists not make them appear like their some nefarious group! Where he says Co2 proj. are a political decision is true! it would be bad science for them to make CO2 projections not considering politics! Co2 emmissions will be determined depending on how politicians deal with the problem!

anyhoo rant over.
btw can anyone find some critics of the CRU based on these leaks that aren't tied to oil and gas or political think tanks?
Someone may have already sorry if i missed it..

Anyhoo I stand by to be corrected, convince me I'm wrong if I am, I'm not one of thos stubborn types..
(I know some of you dispute the natural over man made debate, I dispute that aswell but leave it to later posts)

From Channel Insider:

www.channelinsider.com...

Global Warming Email Disclosure Reveals Strategic Thinking

DATE: 2009-11-22 | By Lawrence Walsh


The security breach that lead to the disclosure of emails between global warming scientists not only shows that they may have been manipulating data, but also what they were thinking and how they planned to counter and discredit skeptics.

The security breach that resulted in the release of email correspondence between global warming scientists is being compared to such history information disclosures as The Pentagon Papers and Nixon’s Oval Office tapes. What the messages reveal is more than just the venomous relations among scientists on both sides of the issue, but the strategies and lengths that pro-climate reformers did and would undertake to advance their cause.

Last week, press reports surfaced that hackers leaked emails obtained from a server belonging to Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The messages contained detailed information on how scientists advocating the ill-effects of human-caused global warming were attempting to manipulate data and discredit their skeptics.

While scientists associated with the emails and global warming research in question say that there’s no doubt that the earth’s mean temperature is rising as a result of human activity and pollution. What they say is uncomfortable to people and gives rise to skepticism is the results of global warming: melting polar caps, rising sea levels, and more-powerful natural disasters. Skeptics, they add, use that discomfort to avoid making tough decisions, such as curbing carbon emissions, overhauling energy production and converting to green systems.
Resource Library:

Can You Afford Email Downtime? Keep Your Business Running with Always-On Email
What CIOs Want from the Channel Headlines Event
The Outside-In Confidential Data Security Model
The enterprise security challenge: Turning security into a business enabler

The disclosed emails are fueling skeptics, who say the messages prove that advocates of the global warming theory were manipulating data and the channels for releasing information to advance their cause. They add that these messages are enough to raise serious doubts behind global warming research and those who advocate reforms.

Yesterday, Channel Insider wrote that the global warming email breach is indicative of the reasons why even routine messages require protection. Security solution providers and vendors have reported a growing number of small and midsized businesses avoiding security investments because they don’t believe that they have any data worth protecting. The global warming email breach not only demonstrates that seemingly routine email has value, but that routine correspondence can reveal strategy which can prove invaluable to adversaries.

Global warming skeptics are jumping on the compromised emails as evidence of a conspiracy to distort data and manipulate media, academic journals and public policy in favor of the global warming agenda. Some independent observers are already staying that the email disclosure will make it difficult for global warming advocates to present their case with integrity as a result of the emails.

Translate that to business. There was once an old adage that you shouldn’t say or do anything that you wouldn’t want to see appear on a newspaper’s front page. Today, email and other digital files can contain enough information to cast doubt and wound business credibility.

Original article here

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Context is irrelevent.

I already know the deniers think context is irrelevant to almost everything, by the way they've reacted to these leaked emails!

In the circumstances where I mentioned the context, it's relevent because your comment doesn't have anything to do with my original point. You intend to argue over that issue because that's what the sceptics do - attack climate scientists with baseless arguments intended to draw people's attention away from the fact that they cannot explain themselves why the earth is warming, and so resort to attacking climate scientists instead.

All I hear are ambigious claims, semantic arguments, non-context claims. What needs to be provided is smoking gun evidence, so they can be treated as fraudsters, like any other fraudster would be in the scientific community. Until then it's irrelevant to ask silly questions about what if's, and pointless to jump to conclusions. It only shows up the climate deniers for what most of them are - not real scientists.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by john124]

With this short entry, the Washington Post (more like 'AP', though) appears to minimize the implications on the leak and to focus more on the its illegal and supposedly manipulative aspects:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

The Associated Press
Sunday, November 22, 2009; 12:56 PM


LONDON -- A leading climate change scientist says the leak of documents stolen from a British research institute may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit.

Kevin Trenberth - of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado - said in an interview Sunday that hackers cherry-picked from the stolen data and distributed selected documents to try to undermine scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Britain's University of East Anglia said hackers last week stole data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change.

Skeptics claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming.

Trenberth says the hackers took data out of context.

Original article
From Google News

[edit on 2009-11-22 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by Long Lance

• the scenarios aren't realistic and they know it so they 'do not have high coinfidence (sic, lol) in GHG projections'

Yeah, no-one knows the future, and any projection of CO2 emission levels over time in the future will be based on a large chunk of guesswork.

let's see what the politicos do first

Those email extracts say nothing of the sort. It just says they can't prejudge what a realistic CO2 projection would be - that will be a result of political decisions. That is, if we do nothing CO2 levels are unconstrained, if we act they won't be - these are political decisions which would require emission controls.

It even clearly expresses the focus when it says 'except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound' - so we only have a certain amount of fossil fuels to burn, projections would be unrealistic if they suggest we will burn twice the fuel we could even get our grubby hands on.

all models must be made to agree, so 'if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong'

That's not what was said. They said they should use the same CO2 levels in the model runs - makes pure sense. Then each model is making projections based on the same scenarios of future emissions. These are obviously emails related to model runs for IPCC data - if they use the same projections their results can be compared. This sort of 'fair test' is taught in primary schools.

To see anything nefarious in those particular emails is ridiculous. If this is the sort of thing you'll be focusing on...

...ya got nothing.

Enjoy.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by melatonin]

Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball joins us to discuss the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University which expose deceit, duplicity and collusion between climate researchers to maintain the fraud of the manmade global warming theory. These emails reveal stunning behind-the-scenes details about how this fraud has been developed and perpetuated, and Dr. Ball shares his insights on what they show. [...]

More in the Youtube video link

Already posted before, but this is longer.
From AP:

www.google.com...

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

By DAVID STRINGER (AP)


LONDON — A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's global climate summit in Denmark.

Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, said he believes the hackers who stole a decade's worth of correspondence from a British university's computer server deliberately distributed only those documents that could help attempts by skeptics to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Trenberth, a well respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said hackers last week stole from its computer server about a decade's worth of data from its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on Web sites and seized on by climate change skeptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

"It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I'm sure that is not a coincidence," Trenberth said in a telephone interview from Colorado.

At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.

Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."

In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies — in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."

Trenberth acknowledged that language used by some colleagues in the hacked e-mails "looks awkward at best," particularly messages which criticize climate change skeptics.

Originally posted by melatonin
[
To see anything nefarious in those particular emails is ridiculous. If this is the sort of thing you'll be focusing on...

...ya got nothing.

let's see,

So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things

they present one and only one view of the issue, by using data they agreed on. it's not clear what exactly they agree on (CO2 input, levels, etc) but i find it interesting they'd take precautions to go exactly the same route. if something is wrong they're all wrong, all or nothing style, which is doubly alarming when one considers how often the existence of a 'consensus' cited, with all its alledged implications. sounds awfully like unity first? whose motto was that again?

shouldn't results be compared after the fact? blind testing has its merits i thought.

anyways, 'adjusting explanations' hmm. does anyone believe these 'adjusted explanations' would shed any more light on the issue than the non-adjusted? the lack of confidence may or may not pertain to an isolated series of simulations, while the official, final and reviewed ones are rock solid paragons of diligence, who knows. all i do know is that anyone voicing concerns about climate modelling is often enough dencounced as anti-science or similar - ask me how i know. hardly convincing from this p.o.v.


iow, the impression leaves a lot to be desired, though and while it's a harmless passage it should imho still raise a few eyebrows.

Originally posted by Long Lance
let's see,

So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things

they present one and only one view of the issue, by using data they agreed on. it's not clear what exactly they agree on (CO2 input, levels, etc) but i find it interesting they'd take precautions to go exactly the same route. if something is wrong they're all wrong, all or nothing style, which is doubly alarming when one considers how often the existence of a 'consensus' cited, with all its alledged implications. sounds awfully like unity first? whose motto was that again?

I just explained it, lol.

Rather than take out of context, read the whole message from some dude called Shrikant (and also include those before). I'm not posting it, as I find it rather unethical - some delicious irony abound here - I wouldn't appreciate my own personal correspondence made public in such a way.

They appear to be clearly talking about using the same levels of CO2 in the models so the runs are consistent. If the projections are wrong, all the runs are wrong in the same way. It's about consistency in methods. Makes sense.

shouldn't results be compared after the fact? blind testing has its merits i thought.

The author is talking about CO2 projections. If they are using the same projections then they all make the same errors in that regard. The models are different. The most effective method is using multiple models all using different approaches but using the same projections. It produces converging evidence.

He even says it would be harder to explain if they used different projections - it would. It would look stupid.

iow, the impression leaves a lot to be desired, though and while it's a harmless passage it should imho still raise a few eyebrows.

But how can you read much into emails which have little in the way of context? For example, I'm guessing they are talking about IPCC model runs - makes the most sense when taken as a series of emails, but I could be wrong. Moreover, this Shirkant's dude's English is less than helpful.

Go back to the original issue here - taking one phrase completely out of context 'ultimately a political decision'. It's little more than deceptive quote-mining (cf. creationists). If this is the extent of the palaver, then ya got nothing.

You can run with this stuff if you want - caveat emptor

[edit on 22-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Not actually jumping to their defence, really.

Haha. Good one Mel. It's ok to say you're defending them, you know.

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm actually waiting for the smoking gun. We've already had the claims of fraud/hoax/nail in coffins blah blah round the echo-chamber, but no real evidence (reflects more on the accusers than those the emails were stolen from). Just ambiguous claims, quote-mining, semantic games, and efforts to suggest scientific fraud when no evidence is present. Pretty disappointing.

I see you've avoided answering any quesitons I asked, and went and posted this same drivel again. Can you say we have access to ALL the emails, including the "deleted" (re AR4) emails?

If not, then your again just resorting to diversion tactics. If you cannot see a clear intention of deciet by these scientists, you must be blinded by your faith in them, or you are one of them (that would make a lot of sense actually, but of course is easy to deny)

Originally posted by countercounterculture
Are we actually arguing that climate change is NOT happening???

No. That is not at all what this thread is about. Most of us know that the climate is constantly changing. What we are arguing is that these (so called) scientists have shown a clear intent to decieve while making sure (trying to) no-one finds out. Deleting emails regarding AR4, refusing to hand data over to a statistician, talk of deleting data rather that handing it over in FOIA requests... Do these guys really care for the public (who pay for them) or are they trying to use "science" to promote their pre-concieved agendas?

So I still have unanswered questions.

Are there more emails which we don't have access to?
and
Can we verify that the ones we do have are genuine?

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by melatonin
Not actually jumping to their defence, really.

Haha. Good one Mel. It's ok to say you're defending them, you know.

I'll defend them from unfair criticism. That's all. If they have been involved in cooking data I'll help you throw them to the wolves.

I see you've avoided answering any quesitons I asked, and went and posted this same drivel again. Can you say we have access to ALL the emails, including the "deleted" (re AR4) emails?

If not, then your again just resorting to diversion tactics. If you cannot see a clear intention of deciet by these scientists, you must be blinded by your faith in them, or you are one of them

(that would make a lot of sense actually, but of course is easy to deny)

Do you know what those AR4 emails are about?

Are they related to anon review for the IPCC? In which case to ensure anon status of the reviewers they should be deleted - you might know why now

Most of you here know little about the scientific process. Reviewers have the right to ensured anonymity.

What you're saying is just normal conspiracy mongering - there must be more! Indeed, I've seen no evidence to deceive, just a group of scientists wicked off at being attacked by ideologically-motivated time-wasters.

The FOIA issue is probably the most robust complaint, but they can delete whatever emails they want until they actually receive an FOIA request - and all requests pertaining to the CRU were denied by the relevant body. McIntyre is free to challenge the FOIA denial. You see, much of the data is not actually Jones' to give.

I'm not involved in climate science in any way. I was nearly once, years ago. But a different path unfolded.

Are there more emails which we don't have access to?
and
Can we verify that the ones we do have are genuine?

Most of the people involved in them have said they were faithful to the original. But that won't cover all. My feeling is that they are. What they are not is a random sample of the emails of this system. Not enough tedious admin stuff from what I have seen.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

...ya got nothing.

Enjoy.

That about sums it up for the Deniers. Not just for this thread and this story, but for the whole non-debate.