At Bishop Hill, the a summary of questionable things said in the stolen data from the CRU gets ever longer.
I've noted a lot of folks saying this is just the politics of science and academia. Some suggesting that since this was private email they obviously use more opinionated language, and it seems the more mainstream journalists are playing it as primarily a theft story, perhaps with a bit thrown in at the end about how climate skeptics are trying to turn this stuff into more than what it is.
Here's the problem: one party is reading the data; the mainstream folk are not!
Here's another problem: so, you want to continue to say these 'scientists' actually believe in global warming? On what basis? When did they actually have the data upon which anyone can base such a claim? Surely, it was some point before they went around 'hiding the decline' and attempting to massage previously meddled with data.
Maybe they started out believing it, perhaps they even had some preliminary work that made them think so, but it looks quite similar to the death of a thousand cuts; it all adds up to a big, stinky lie in the end. This isn't limited to the field of climatology; I'm sure there are plenty of economists who could use a good scrubbing.
Where exactly is the actual science in this field?
And how much money are we wasting globally chasing made up hobgoblins in order to keep these petty people funded?