Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > Since when are "leaked emails" a source of anything except noise? > > What reason is there for believing that a "leaked" email which supports > the agenda of the one who "reveals" it is not a actually a *forged* > email?
They are real. Quoting Eugene Robinson: "Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, released a statement Wednesday saying, 'My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well.' That would be an example of British understatement." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112503608.htm I agree with Robinson that these e-mails do not prove global warming is a hoax. As I said, that would be like saying the duplicity on the part of plasma fusion scientists in their attacks on cold fusion prove that Tokamaks do not work. These e-mails prove what I learned back in high school and college: that many professors and researchers are jerks. - Jed
