In article ,
om says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

In article ,
says...

In article ,
om says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
om says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. :)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

On Nov 22, 8:49*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. *:)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

Tom, I've been kicked out of some clubs I started... so, don't feel
alone.
?;^ )

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:27:14 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Nov 22, 8:49*pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. *:)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

Tom, I've been kicked out of some clubs I started... so, don't feel
alone.
?;^ )

Some how, I believe you.

On Nov 22, 11:13 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:27:14 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Nov 22, 8:49 pm, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...html#printMode

They will defend it by going after the messenger, you watch...

"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

Welcome to the club. :)

Then again, I wouldn't be a member of any club who would have me as a
member.

Tom, I've been kicked out of some clubs I started... so, don't feel
alone.
?;^ )

Some how, I believe you.

Mann and Jones behavior in all of this has been really sleazy. Just
about any real scientist (even us commercial scientists) welcome
criticism of our work because then we can make it better. We try to
keep away from personal attacks and realize that sometimes our critics
are simply correct. Yeah, we all have egos but if you try to cover up
questionable stuff, it just spirals out of control and you really end
up looking foolish. Yes, I sometimes think my professional critics
are being jerks but you have to keep up the pretense of civility,
otherwise you end up looking stupid.
You NEVER, NEVER, NEVER put things into e-mail that you would be
ashamed to be published. You do not say such things on the phone
either. Save it for times when you can be absolutely sure you are
alone with someone else and even then be professional about it,
otherwise it'll come back to bite you. Sometimes I hear my employees
say nasty things about some company that has done us wrong and I tell
em to watch what they say.
There are people who have really done me wrong but whenever I see them
at conferences, I always greet them in a friendly manner (but watch
what I say to them) because this impresses people. When I hear
something bad has happed to them, I make sure I make it known they
have my best wishes although in reality I may wish for em to die. It
is just good PR.
I am almost astonished at the foolishness of these guys in the e-
mails. It is either a case of arrogantly thinking they are immune to
blowback or simple foolishness to such an extent that I would doubt
their judgement on anything.

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:12:33 -0500, BAR wrote:


"University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how
many of the stolen items were authentic."

“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all of this material is genuine.�

There was 160 MB of data stolen. Obviously, it would take some time to
confirm if it was authentic. Obviously, someone who was willing to break
the law (hacking), and post private information publicly, *might* not be
above changing the data, if they have an agenda.

You don't think they have an agenda, do you?

This is priceless!

If you weren't a skeptic before you should be now.

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

BTW, I've been banned from Mikey Mann's Blog.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:16:36 -0600, thunder
wrote:

You don't think they have an agenda, do you?

You know, for a really smart guy, you have some amazing blind spots.

OF COURSE THEY HAD AN AGENDA!!!

Jesus - read through the material.

Damn man...

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:16:36 -0600, thunder
wrote:

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

Read the exchange between Keiller and Briffa at the bottom of this
analysis.

Neither one was answered.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/024995.php

In fact, read the whole thing.

On 11/23/09 7:29 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:16:36 -0600,
wrote:

Why? Where's the smoking gun? The blue dress? Private emails are
easily taken out of context, and even with that caveat, I haven't seen
anything in those emails that debunks the science.

Read the exchange between Keiller and Briffa at the bottom of this
analysis.

Neither one was answered.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/024995.php

In fact, read the whole thing.


Pimping that right-wing blog again, eh?

--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.