Bronwyn wrote:

"Monbiot is not at all persuaded that these emails discredit the whole of the science on climate change."

Neither am I.

Nor have I written anywhere in this thread or any other thread that I believe AGW is a hoax. On the contrary I have been at pains to point out that, this contretemps notwithstanding, the weight of evidence supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Telling me to "Stop dictating the terms of discussion" is absurd. I do not have that power. Nor do I wish to have it.

And so your point is….?

Bronwyn, examinator and rstuart

I fail to see how anyone can read these emails and not feel that there is a real possibility of scientific fraud here. As I said before, no smoking gun but plenty of smoke.

To quote Monbiot again:

"Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed."

Do you disagree with that statement?

Monbiot also says:

"I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign"

Given Britain's draconian libel laws that is a bold statement.

Do you believe Phil Jones should keep his job?

As rstuart has pointed, restricting access to data obtained with the aid of public funds is a scandal.

Do you think Jones and his friends should be allowed to restrict access to climate data?

Monbiot also writes:

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "

Do you think dissenting voices should be silenced?

Get real folks. This is not just scientists being bitchy. This is not merely privacy for WIP. There are clear indications of the possibility of fraud and attempts to manipulate the publication process as well as refusing access to data obtained with public funds.

And to repeat yet again, no this does not discredit all the science behind AGW. It MAY discredit some of it.

stevenlmeyer You assert "no this does not discredit all the science behind AGW. It MAY discredit some of it".
What are you suggesting, just being a bit pregnant?

If the people doing the research are even hinting that some of the work is fudged how can it not have an impact on their credibility,
and not lead to re-evaluation of their “findings” , especially when such research is being used to justify major changes in many peoples lives.

I cannot imagine another profession where such could be revealed and not lead to a major inquiry .What if a judge or doctor was found to have made similar about their judgments/operations . Or Imagine if similar had been sourced from George W’s or Sarah Palin’s email , does anyone really believe they’d be considered of no consequence. Would we be talking about their “right to privacy” & “ prosecution” being of foremost importance —not bloody likely.

And as for “The hot air created by the talking heads will dissipate within a couple of months.”
Nay, it is only just beginning, Copenhagen is just around the corner and there will be a lot of hard-sell hot air emanating from that point.The Haj, Mecca,2009, by comparison small bikkies -- all true believers please face Copenhagen and exhale ommmmm—all the rest had better hold your breath.

Steven,

I doubt that anyone is saying that this doesn't look good but proof of wrong doing? Hmmm. I didn't say it didn't warrant further investigation.
Just that the Judge Roy Beam dictum " We'll give him a fair trial, then we'll hang him" IMO denies the 'accused' natural justice i.e. the presumption of innocence *untill FOUND guilty*.

One might suggest that your question is akin to 'push polling' in that in its wording suggests an expected outcome.

BTW I'm curious of your justification of the method of discovery was illegal and therefore possibly inadmissible in court (fruit from a poison tree) and a clear breach of right to privacy.
Given, our notion of Justice, imperfect as it may be, is based on checks and balances ...clearly ignored here.

Given you past support for absolute individual 'rights' you appear to be arguing the exact opposite here.

My over all point here is that I think 'in the public interests' hasn't been proved and untill guilt is proven it won't and even then it (ITPI) is dubiously overblown.

In this instance "where there is 'percieved' to be smoke there may not be fire, just heat" E44

stevenlmeyer

<< Telling me to "Stop dictating the terms of discussion" is absurd. I do not have that power. ... And so your point is….? >>

My point was that your comments to examinator on page seven were out of order. The use of capitals and repetition, and telling him what the debate was and wasn't about, certainly seemed like attempts to control the debate to me. I wasn't referring to the rest of the thread. It was that post only, which I would have thought was clear, seeing as I'd posted on the same morning, but perhaps I should have been more specific.

<< Do you think dissenting voices should be silenced? >>

I absolutely think we've all been forced to listen to far too much waffle from climate change denialists, much of it on this site. This issue is far too urgent to allow ourselves to be sidetracked by these nutters. So yes, I do think there is a case for some voices to be ignored, if not silenced. If time was on our side we could sit round to our heart's content and talk it all through. Time is not on our side. The time for talking is over and it's now time for real action. That's what the overwhelming majority of people want and expect at this very late stage.

That's what this is all about. It's a deliberate campaign to highjack the measures about to be put in place. The denialists, backed up by all the big corporate polluters, have the rest of us over a barrel. This is just another last-ditch attempt to delay action so the big guns can keep polluting with gay abandon. For decades now, the denialists' orchestrated campaigning has cast doubt on every attempt of scientists to get their data out into the public realm. No wonder, they've been forced into some collusion of their own. How else do they compete with the huge vested interests lined up against them? Whatever else, these scientists have truth on their side and at the moment that is what really matters.

TBC

stevenlmeyer (continued)

<< Do you believe Phil Jones should keep his job? >>

Yes, I do. And he should start fighting back over this. He needs to go on the attack and start defending his hard-working scientists, Sure, admit the mistakes and promise and work towards greater accountability, but stand up and get some perspective into all of this. These emails were not randomly selected. They were carefully cherry picked from thousands of others and taken out of context to smear the efforts of those involved. What organization anywhere wouldn't have private email correspondence that could be incriminating if deliberately manipulated and taken out of context?

As stated by the Guardian's George Marshall, << ... the emails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on realclimate.org, the emails contain "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords." >>

I agree totally with his conclusion - << This is a desperate, last-ditch tactic by fanatics who have lost the rational debate. >>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change