In response to:

Caught Red-Handed on Climate Change

M.Hillinger__aka__QR Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 8:40 AM
Notice how the East Anglia emails were “revealed” while Gleick “stole” and “altered” documents. Since Ransom wrote this, British officials have concluded that the GRU emails were, indeed, stolen from the outside and not leaked. An independent review also indicated that Gleick did not alter the Heartland documents. Finally, there have been no less than nine different investigations on both sided of the Atlantic that concluded that no data was manipulated. Yet, Ransom is fine with theft of emails. Double standard?
3204 Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 2:21 PM

What's it like to be lost in your own little fantasy world?
M1946W Wrote: Jan 21, 2013 8:59 AM
The difference comes in Gleick's theft and attempt to decieve by forging documents versus simply releasing damning emails from the East Anglia crowd that did show attempts to not only suppress opinions differing from theirs but also discussing methods of manipulating data (e.g. hide the decline.) The 'investigations' in both cases were not a search for the truth but a mere rubber-stamp cover-up rather like a Democrat ethics investigation of one of their members who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

A prominent global warming scientist, Peter Gleick, who was chairman of the ethics committee at the American Geophysical Union, admitted last year that he stole some documents- and he may have forged others- from the conservative think-tank the Heartland Institute. But that’s all in a day’s work for a work-a-day climate warrior. The important thing isn’t the quest for the truth in global climate research, but, as Charlie Sheen would say, winning. With winning comes cash.   

Because for some time it’s been clear, that in the climate debate, instead of actually accomplishing something worthwhile, all the attention will be...

Related Tags: Climate Change