On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Liz Scott-Wilson
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Lawrence - that's a strong statement you've made re "Another is Climategate where records were altered and or destroyed to avoid
disclosure."
well when you scientists 'talking' in emails about destroying records or information one would assume that something may have happened. We do know that a key database of information was destroyed. for nefarious purposes? probably not. but who knows it is up to the university and the various scientists around the world to prove that they didn't do anything wrong. The US Dept of Energy issued a hold notice the other day telling the various national labs to NOT destroy any records or information related to climate research.
As a result of reviewing the various emails one gets the impression that data was misconstrued, altered, modified whatever you want to call it to reach a conclusion. This has called into doubt the past 20+ years of climate research
I believe the phrase is "always at least 2-sides to a story" - or at least we should understand that there are vested interests on both side.... Maybe it's why record-keeping and researching are not the same profession...
regards
Liz
speaking of "2-sides" to the story the New York Times is not exactly the most credible paper these days. One of their reporters was 'used' by the CRUgate/Climategate scientists to push their agenda. The NYT also refused to publish any of the emails that others had because they didn't think it was the thing to do. And yet they have no problem publishing other information that was saving lives. In addition back in the 1930s one of their reporters Walter Duranty failed to accurately report about the famine that was taking place in the Ukraine where millions eventually died.