Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (243958)	2/4/2014 10:14:47 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541375

(truth being a defense to defamation) Truth is also the offense. Best wishes for bankruptcy. Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing. A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing. Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action." Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails. The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails. Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question. Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions." ucsusa.org

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (243958)	2/4/2014 1:20:16 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541375

>>"... -that is that in fact the climate scientist did urge manipulation of the data to the East Anglican climate scientists) then I think the defendants will ultimately prevail here (truth being a defense to defamation) "<< OK, you want to tell us where you got this >>"fact"<< from? And I will enjoy seeing your response to WR's reply to your "fact".

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (243958)	2/4/2014 1:30:45 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541375

that is that in fact the climate scientist did urge manipulation of the data to the East Anglican climate scientists If you are referring to "hide the decline" this will not prove to be in the favor of the defendants. The best they can do with that is accuse the climate scientists of using a suspicious sounding phrase that could confuse un-knowledgeable individuals looking for conspiracies where there were none. Whether that defense will fly in court I don't know, but the prosecution can certainly point out that before leveling the defamation they did based on that phrase, the idiots should have read the paper and looked at the technique referenced by that phrase, and understood it, before claiming it was a conspiracy to alter data.