OK jedimaster, I'll come back for just one thing .. your threats .. as baseless as ever, but in keeping with the AGW belief mold, next you'll be with mikk insisting on the inquisition for heretics.

"BTW- would you like Phil James to sue you for defamation re your accusation? It's quite plausible that he could, although you assume that because you said it on OLO you are exempt and immune- like the assumptions made by the scientists at CRU."

Where is my defamation?

Here is my one mention of Phil Jones "I wonder who did release the emails into the wild, you see I suspect it was Phil Jones himself, he sure doesn't look good does he - he's not gloating, he looks like a man whose conscience is burning."

So again, where is the defamation?

Otherwise, I'll now retire as it is useless trying to communicate with fanatical AGW believers. I see spindoc has tried to educate you and you even admit you have not read the emails or the other releases, yet you still hold that's it's private

rpg:Your statement

"I wonder who did release the emails into the wild, you see I suspect it was Phil Jones himself, he sure doesn't look good does he - he's not gloating, he looks like a man whose conscience is burning."

is defamatory- or more strictly speaking, libellous, by any one of a dozen definions of the word that you can easily find on the internet, which all have the statement:

"If a comment brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory."

I doubt that you could plead under the provision of "fair comment", which would require you to demonstrate it is true.

I'd guess that Phil Jones has more to worry about than people in the antipodes slagging him.

And where did I make a threat? I asked: "would you like Phil J(on)es to sue you for defamation re your accusation? It's quite plausible that he could.."

As to spindoc's attempts to educate me: "HARRY_READ_ME" was comprehensively dealt with in the inquiries.It was a beat-up. The cynics seized upon his loose language as signs of deep deviousness.Read RealClimate.org- why not blog them - they do post contra blogs if they are civil. You might get to correspond with the leading climatologists- Gavin Schmidt is most helpful. Dare you

Jedimaster,

May the farce be with you and all that!

With each post your getting to sound more like Darth Vader!
(hardly becoming of an emissary of science!)

Are you sure you’re not from the dark side?

JM tries to do with intimidation what his logic and argument cannot.

None of the CRU inquiries dealt with the science, but you know that and hope to bluster your way through.

What a guy!

The skeptics really have you rattled, don't they?

Amicus

I reflected on whether to withdraw from the debate, given the vitriol being projected towards me. But I will persist, as I can't see why your approach to debate should prevail.

Two points: First the point that I was making about libel, etc, if you read my thread with the same care that it was written, is that we all say a lot of loose things in "private" media- such as some people thought that email was- and a lot of people think that OLO and Facebook are today- even Tony Abbott admits to that. Despite the opportunities that the law provides for redress, most people let it wash over- and I am one of those. It comes as a surprise, therefore, when somebody breaks with that ethos. The CRU hacker, in my view, broke that ethos. Your alarm that I might be threatening legal action indicates to me that you are very concerned about this ethos- if it suits you.

Point 2: You say: "None of the CRU inquiries dealt with the science". Have you read the Muir Russell Report? Quote:(Findings)

13. ... On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.
14. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

jm neither of your points deals with the science, they deal with the behaviour.

keep grasping though, it's fun to watch you squirm.