Sentences with phrase «climategate emails read»

Not exact matches

Anyone who has read the Climategate emails readily understands the reasons why the potential NOAAgate emails are necessary to obtain.

Just read Mikey's tweets, Lewandowsky's publications, and the climategate emails.

Having met many of the players of «Climategate», having some exposure to how they deal with each other and the broader public and to less connected professions... I'd have to say, much of what I read in the emails, would have absolutely been said face to face.

I've read some of the email comments from the «Climategate» email hack, and I can not fathom in what context some of those comments could be construed any other way than as they appear.

Look at the report — the committee read 376 emails from the «Climategate file», blogs, op - eds, newspaper reports, journal and magazine articles at the inquiry stage and the same things and a few more official documents at the investigation stage.

It's all in the Climategate emails, if you care to read about it.

Then I read many of the climategate emails and documents.

2010 has been great entertainment for me, I was sceptical before climategate, and suspected a fake at first, then read the email over christmas.

We've read the climategate emails.

Regarding the Climategate emails — I have read them.

Read the Climategate emails and their context from Steve McIntyre's ClimateAudit.

Well, OBVIOUSLY Peter John has never read the Climategate emails.

(Do read down into the comments for discussion on which if any of the Climategate emails the EPA actually reviewed.)

On the other hand... I'm not sure how broadbrush, unsupported impressions add value... how would one compare contrary impressions... how does JC's «experience» add value... she's one climate scientist among many... she has stated that much of her concerns stem from reading the climategate emails, Climate Audit, and Montford's book... well... I've read probably 90 + % of the «controversial» climategate emails and many others... and followed CA for years... is JC any more of an expert here?

I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails.

Your own reaction to Climategate has shaken my faith a bit when you say it is no big deal and then you haven't read the emails.

Are you being deliberately ironic with that last comment, or have you not read the Climategate emails?

redskylite, You might like to read Ross Mckittrick's pdf that gives a detailed picture of the what's wrong with the IPCC, Function, structure and as revealed in the Climategate emails, a culture of advocacy, stifling debate and manipulating data.

If you are out of ideas on how to censor folks, I'd suggest reading the Climategate emails, they have lots of plans on how to keep unpleasant facts from surfacing...

Did you not read the climategate emails?

I, for one, really hope that there isn't anything to «ClimateGate» but if you've read anything about it at all, you know that the problem wasn't the emails, but in the leaked data sets and source code.

Just read the Climategate 2 emails, even his own «team» debunked the Hockey Stick before it was accepted in to the IPCC.

a year ago, when reading climategate emails, I couldn't make a lot of sense of many... but if you put them in the needed context, it all becomes very much clear...

Indeed, having personally read each and every one of the emails liberated from the Climategate Research Unit at East Anglia in the UK and all the Freedom of Information emails from NASA - GISS in New York, it is clear to me some of those scientists have violated their ethical obligations to both science and we taxpayers who fund their work by «cooking the books» to fudge and bend the data, often beyond the breaking point.

Adrian, you did read the Climategate emails and what the «climate scientists» said and called anyone who questioned their findings, even saying that they were glad they were dead?