Are the Climategate emails authentic?

[Muhammed]

The people involved have publicly and repeatedly tried to defend the emails for many years, especially on websites like RC and CA.

Therefore I think they are authentic and voted yes. Thank you wikileaks.

How about you? Do you think the leaked/hacked climategate emails are authentic? Why or why not?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The people involved have publicly and repeatedly tried to defend the emails for many years, especially on websites like RC and CA.

Therefore I think they are authentic and voted yes. Thank you wikileaks.

How about you? Do you think the leaked/hacked climategate emails are authentic? Why or why not?

The 2009 one's or the new ones?

 

[Muhammed]

The people involved have publicly and repeatedly tried to defend the emails for many years, especially on websites like RC and CA.

Therefore I think they are authentic and voted yes. Thank you wikileaks.

How about you? Do you think the leaked/hacked climategate emails are authentic? Why or why not?

The 2009 one's or the new ones?

All of them.

 

[SSDD]

Sure they are authentic...and attempts to claim that the "scientists" aren't really saying what they are clearly saying in the emails is evidence of the degree to which they have managed to dupe a certain portion of the population.

 

[IanC]

Of course they are authentic. Who would be able to fraudulently copy the writing style of hundreds of scientists, over hundreds of email chains, which neatly dovetail with the events happening at the time?

Peter Gleick added a fraudulent paper to the hacked Heartland info because there was nothing interesting otherwise. It was obviously his writing style. Fabricating hundreds of writing styles over thousands of emails is close to impossible.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, they authentically show no problems. That's why the deniers were permanently disgraced in the eyes of every non-cultist. Some people doubted deniers were frauds before Climategate, but nobody doubted it afterwards.

Why do you deniers want to relive your greatest humiliation over and over? I mean, we get it. All deniers rely on fraudulent claims to the exclusion of almost everything else. There's no need to keep hammering on that point.

 

[Muhammed]

Yes, they authentically show no problems. That's why the deniers were permanently disgraced in the eyes of every non-cultist. Some people doubted deniers were frauds before Climategate, but nobody doubted it afterwards.

Why do you deniers want to relive your greatest humiliation over and over? I mean, we get it. All deniers rely on fraudulent claims to the exclusion of almost everything else. There's no need to keep hammering on that point.

You are projecting.

 

[Muhammed]

So far, it is 5/0.

'Anyone else care to chime in and cast a vote?

Where the fuck are all of you Al Gore worshipers now, bitches?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yes, they authentically show no problems. That's why the deniers were permanently disgraced in the eyes of every non-cultist. Some people doubted deniers were frauds before Climategate, but nobody doubted it afterwards.

Why do you deniers want to relive your greatest humiliation over and over? I mean, we get it. All deniers rely on fraudulent claims to the exclusion of almost everything else. There's no need to keep hammering on that point.

Navigating in an alternate universe is ghey.

Climategate proved one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt...........the religion rigs the data. And plenty of similar stuff since 2009.........well documented in these pages.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, they authentically show no problems. That's why the deniers were permanently disgraced in the eyes of every non-cultist. Some people doubted deniers were frauds before Climategate, but nobody doubted it afterwards.

Why do you deniers want to relive your greatest humiliation over and over? I mean, we get it. All deniers rely on fraudulent claims to the exclusion of almost everything else. There's no need to keep hammering on that point.

Mann's Nature trick.