3 ms·

They're clearly colluding to change the data and get the report out there. They're clearly not. If you wish to make a claim I suggest you cite sources. Here ar

• wooster 16y ago
  I don't have a horse in this race, but the Nature article has some spin to it: A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers. If you conspire to do something with someone else and don't act, it's still a conspiracy. It's the planning that makes it a conspiracy, not the actual act.