Too bad he's not going to click on it, Carl. LMAO --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Carl Lindner <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Carl Lindner <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [OT] Oops! Climate Change Data Dumped > To: "'ProFox Email List'" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 9:50 PM > In classic Ricardo style, if you are > not intelligent and educated enough > to express your thoughts in a few paragraphs then you are > not worthy of > the time I'd spend reading you.,so I just didn't read it, > please try > again :) > > Once again Ricardo, you are one mucho tough hombre! > Ok, Ricardo how about > this - a little dated - 2 days ago.... > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.ht > ml > > Title: "Rigging a Climate Consensus" > Subtitle: "About those emails and peer review. > > The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and > document scandal > have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. > Yes, the wording > of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in > no way undermines > the underlying science. They're ignoring the damage they've > done to public > confidence in the arbiters of climate science. > > "What they've done is search through stolen personal > emails-confidential > between colleagues who often speak in a language they > understand and is > often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael > Mann told Reuters > Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something > innocent into > something nefarious." > > The Australian Antarctic research station Casey, where > scientists study the > effects of climate change. > .Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's > Climate Research > Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from > the same climate > hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the > published emails do not > read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a > result. Some were > clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use > colloquialisms > frequently used between close colleagues," he said this > week. > > We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails > differently if > he expected them to end up in the newspaper. He's right > that it doesn't look > good that his May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the > U.N.'s Fourth > Assessment Report said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you > may have had > with Keith re AR4?" Mr. Mann says he didn't delete any such > emails, but the > point is that Mr. Jones wanted them hidden. > > Don't you just love "foreign to the outside world". I > am very impressed > that he uses that big word "nefarious". > > So, what do you think Ricardo? > > Carl > > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > This message: > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/000001ca7167$ee75fb00$cb61f1...@com > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are > the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or > medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for > those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
