Well the 'concensus' (nice word, the AGW 'scientists' like it) is that it was a whistleblower inside the CRU and not a hacker that released the emails.
What seems to be evident from them
a) Manipulation/falsification of data to fit their models.
b) Coding that I think HT and co would balk at.
c) Totally skewed peer review, i.e. only reviewed by people who already agree in the premise. They even mention redifining the peer review process so they can keep out dissenting points of view!
d) Shutting out of scientists who are sceptical.
e) Manipulation/intimidation of scientific bodies.
f) Hiding behind data protection laws, when this fails the destruction of the data to avoid FOIA requests. (One response to a FOIA request was 'his dog ate it'! Never worked for me at school :-( )
g) Manipulation of the media.
In the UK the BBC hasn't done a news story on the contents of the Climategate emails, merely mentioned the 'hack'/leak. I watched Question Time last week and was surprised when the subject was alluded to by one of the questioners. However the 'debate' that followed wasn't about Climategate it was just the usual 'official line' by all the panellists apart from one. Even David Dimbleby never brought up Climategate, so it seems as though he was also toeing the 'party' line.
Here is the UK Met Office prediction for our Winter - There is a 50% chance it will be a warmer one.
So I guess also a 50% chance it will be a colder one! Talk about covering your bases.
So these guys can't event predict 2-3 months in advance, yet they can predict years, decades in advance. Give me a break.
There has been enough doubt cast on the voracity of the main scientists involved, the data, and the models that it is high time for a complete unbiased, independent review of all their work.
