Originally Posted by Bill8

yes, I read that report long ago. I dont remember it all. What do you think it says.

You know, posting links is a lazy and timid way to debate, you should at least add some commentary explaining why you think the link is relevant, or perhaps discussing it's provenance.

Anyway, aside from that, what's your point with posting thsi investogation. As I recall, it was the first one published, but I may have my sequence misremembered, I spend more time studying the theory than the investigations.

Am I supposed to go thru teh report and copy and paste the relevant quotes?

Maybe you think I'm intimidated by investogativese and I will be frightened by the thick language of this report? Dude, I read the whole thing when it first came out.

Lets see - okay, I'll do that



So, I suppose I should give you the cliff notes, and explain to you what they just said.

They said, they found no evidence of attempts to manipulate the science. Thats the first part.

Then they said, but the scientists should have responded to the FOI requests faster. However, they add, there is not a clear policy for handling and paying for responses to FOI requests, and somebody needs to define that policy.

All of thsi is well known and was heavily discussed at the time this report came out. The FOI pat was especially heavily discussed.

Because, you know, Steve McIntyre tried to get people from all over the world to harass the CRU with FOI requests.

I'd love to go into the whole FOI thing with you - shall we?