Bill8

clear as mud - but I will guess that you are trying to say "what about climategate?", but are being cagey because you already know that none of the investigations of climategate found any wrongdoing.

with one exception - it was considered a violation of science ethics to share data from a scientist outside the east anglia circle within east anglia without permission (I believe that was the finding on that particular breach, if I have a detail wrong I still stand behind my general description as accurate enough for gfy). But that sharing had nothing to do with the commonly discussed and published issues in the east anglia emails, so it doesn't apply to climategate as a political issue.

There was an additional civil finding, that east aglia was not responding properly to FOI requests, but that isn't considered an ethical breach. The scientists argued that FOI requests were bombarding the center at an unprecedented rate and that they didn't have staff or time in place to answer them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

as I said, I urge your side to continue investigations. and i fervently support greater scientific transparency. if climate information is going to be subjected to greater public scrutiny some sort of system to make that possible, including paying staff to put data onto open servers and making subscripttion publications more available to the public, should be instituted.

but if you continue to claim wrongdoing, without new evidence, when 3 investigations in the UK and one here in the US have all said none occured, then your side is simply ignorant at best and intentionally lying for political purposes at worst.

personally, I think you are both ignorant, which is common, AND intentionally lying for political purposes; but I'm willing to allow that simple ignorance is sufficient explanation, given the average state of the american mind.