I like this one:Yeah...Like they did with their wall-to-wall coverage of Watergate?Hmmmm....perhaps these networks are waiting for the FACTS to come out in the case, as opposed to jumping to conclusions that suit their agenda? Maybe?
Or maybe they're busy waiting until all the "facts" come in, like Dan Rather did?
"Few academics outside those directly snared in the e-mail exchanges are defending or downplaying what happened. Asking a scientist to "delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report]" is really asking someone to destroy evidence. The "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]" means just that: hiding data that disproves one's position. Even most scientists can understand that is wrong. "
EDITORIAL: Global-warming fraud harms science - Washington Times
"The attitudes revealed in the e-mails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked e-mails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."