if everything is on the up and up

Climate scientists have a vested interest in being alarmist

that doesn't prove they're lying obviously

but why were they discussing bypassing FOIA

I don’t know what that is?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#23d9885927ba

Also, Hal Lewis

Can I see the emails?

They quote some of them in that article I linked

This is what I could find in regards to the email controversy.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails?ref=patrick.net

I think that's from the first climategate

the second one happened in 2011

I mean I get it, of course it could be fabricated

The article says updated 2011

GG @Throttles, you just advanced to level 5!

I haven't studied it enough to be 100% confident

I just think all this stuff is smoke, and where there's smoke there's fire

@qwasi, what's your take on https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf?

I can't give you an answer right now, but I'll look at it

Also, Legates the person who you quoted to have pointed out the misinterpretation in Cook was also caught in controversy.


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-legates-caught-climate-change-controversy/24090273/

There was also this explaining Legate’s view of Cook’s paper

https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/04/the-illogic-of-deniers-david-legates-on.html

I'll look at all this stuff later on

<:lol:583236542580129825>

I have to get off in a sec, I don't have time to look at it right now

Ripley's, Believe it or Not

I do other things besides talk about climate change and Vlad licking your balls

Yeah, you suck my cock.

Get on with it, lad.

No, but I will read that link you posted

While you're at it, which you aren't really at all, read this as well: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

promise lads

I already know about the McGahn thing, is there something else you'd like to draw my attention to?

Define "knowing" about the McGahn thing.

Because reading three sentences about it does not qualify as knowing.

Apparently Trump talked about having him fire Mueller for conflict of interest

Wow, you know so much about the McGahn thing, lad.

Calm down.

and then tried to get him to deny that he had talked to him about it

what else

See? You know jackshit.

Read the report.