What we do know, according to the scientists’ own words, is that data was manipulated in odd ways, and strategies were employed to deceive, suppress and misrepresent to the public. Freedom of Information Act enquiries were ignored for years (yes I’m looking at you Keith Briffa), and whatever “value-added” data remained was released reluctantly, and only after the incriminating emails surfaced.

These are not the actions of a group of people confident in their findings and methodology.

People reviewing this data are, shall we say, often reaching different conclusions to the original studies.

Merry Christmas Roger.

kront, make the effort if you’re going to pretend that you’re basis is logic. Climate science is repeatable. It’s been done. And one person saying that blue is blue while another insists that it can only be purple isn’t a debate, it’s a waste of time. As you seem to be also arguing that you’re a scientist, maybe you want to contact the IPCC with your well-founded observations. *ahem*
Leaving the door open for me to leave and you to have the last word.

And thank you for demonstrating my point perfectly re shutting down the debate. Along the way you see clear to make some assumptions about me that allow you to justify this decision to yourself.

Incidentally, I subscribe to the theory of evolution, precisely because it is clear, repeatable science, with transparent access to data. That said, I am open to arguments that refine, redefine, or even refute the theory.

Climate “science”, well there are some issues there aren’t there?

On both, you are failing. That is why I suggested taking that KKK piece down. You may regret leaving it there. I don’t see your print version anywhere any more, so don’t know if it appeared there. I hope not.

If flaming upsets you (1) Why is there a Comment section under your stories? (2) why do you reply?