NYT refuses to publish illegaly obtained material never meant for the public eye

[Amused]

Nothing in that link says anything about largely funded.

"Since the second half of the 1970s the Unit has also received funding through a series of contracts with the United States Department of Energy to support the work of those involved in climate reconstruction and analysis of the effects on climate of greenhouse gas emissions."

Some funding <> largely funded and right above that it's founded by private donations from BP, etc. So anyways - private and public - back to your frothing.

I guess you missed the part where the University is listed as "public." The vast majority of it's funds come from government.

But oh well. Keep reaching...

 

[Blackjack200]

Um, no.

The real world effect of any added or subtracted gas is GUESS work at best, as any model they have made has been wildly inaccurate. So, because the models are inaccurate it shows they really have no fucking clue what the end result will be, therefore ANY conclusion is bullshit.

And the obvious bias of the researchers plays a huge part too, as the inaccuracy of the models ALL swung wildly in the direction of the bias of the researchers.

Climategate marked a shift in public opinion both here, and around the world. To deny it is rather silly.

You failed to respond to any of my points except the question of Climategate's impact on public opinion. Do you have polling results that show a shift in public opinion?

You're the one talking about climate models and end results, not me, so you're just arguing with yourself. Feel free to continue to do so.

 

[werepossum]

Um, no.

The real world effect of any added or subtracted gas is GUESS work at best, as any model they have made has been wildly inaccurate. So, because the models are inaccurate it shows they really have no fucking clue what the end result will be, therefore ANY conclusion is bullshit.

And the obvious bias of the researchers plays a huge part too, as the inaccuracy of the models ALL swung wildly in the direction of the bias of the researchers.

Climategate marked a shift in public opinion both here, and around the world. To deny it is rather silly.

Agreed. Climategate showed not how science works, but rather how some scientists conspired to stack the deck, trying to prohibit any honest review of contrary evidence while manipulating and then destroying their own data to fit the predetermined outcome. Given the horrible state of climate modeling, I think the CAGW crowd should shift to the measurable effects of excess CO2 - aquatic and marine acidification springs to mind - and drop this Chicken Little act.

Amusingly, Climategate disclosed real wrongdoing on the public dole, whilst this latest data dump is merely mildly embarrassing and irritating. Of course the Times chose to publish the one that fits its agenda.