I know the Climategate 2.0 emails are being attacked by Global Warmers. They have attacked skeptics for quoting some out of context or not understanding the science that explains the wording of particular email quotes.
Fair enough on the specifics, in many cases. I can't judge lots of those criticisms. But we can't overlook the forest by staring at the tree rings.
I can judge the fact that the so-called climate scientists defending the consensus have clearly acted in non-scientific fashion over the efforts by skeptics to get their data. The climate consensus community resisted following the law to release data, wouldn't admit that they had lost much of the data, attempted to punish and exclude climate scientists not fully gorged on the Koolaid, fudged the science to get results and impressions they wanted for political purposes, and discussed how to avoid having emails subject to FOIA requests--which in itself is apparently a crime.
The overall impression--despite individual perfectly reasonable criticisms of concluding too much from individual excerpts--is that the climate consensus has something to hide and isn't comfortable defending their claims in the light of day where other scientists can test their claims with more science. More science is the cure for questions about science, isn't it? I thought punishing heretics was the realm of intolerant religion.
If there isn't a scientifc crime, why is there a cover up?
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
