Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
What's your take on it?
|
My take is after reading a few of the quoted blocks of the emails, is that they could be talking about many things.
These for instance..
Quote:
The new emails also reveal the scientists? attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
?The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what?s included and what is left out? of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC?s most recent climate assessment.
?I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don?t know what she thinks she?s doing, but its not helping the cause,? wrote Mann in another newly released email.
?I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose? skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.
|
There is nothing damming about anything said in the first 3 quoted examples. Unless of course you are trying to spin a agenda against global warming. There is no context to see what they were actually discussing, just a few cherry picked lines.
The first they are talking what to leave in a report or what to leave out. Just because they want to leave out info, doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy. They are trying to decide what is important and what is not.
So they don't think a random scientist is working with them.. big deal are they not allowed to discuss that?
As far as the last.. while yes it seems like dirty tactics, trying to get someone to investigate a person. It doesn't mean they are in some conspiracy. it just shows that someone is likely on a power trip..
None of these proof anything they are just a bunch cherry picked quotes cobbled together in a agenda biased article trying to lead you on.
If this was the proof in the pudding, then why is it all so vague, with just cherry picked quotes with no context to actually judge them by?
This is nothing more than a opinion biased article where the writer is trying to led you on with no real evidence.