Replies

We can't “really” be sure this is a complete file - nor even that all of the parts and pieces and extracts are “real”. Some may certainly be fakes, some mistakes, some are obviously extracted random bits or partial files.

BUT - and it's an important “but” - the various emails and files and documents are themselves “real world” and real time. They are not written or scripted like an edited book. The dates and sequences ring correct: very, very difficult to do for records spanning more than a decade.

The related events (other publications, other authors’ quotes - and Handley Center's efforts to suppress other articles and in other peer-reviewed journals appear at the right time, under the right circumstances to “create” the organized deliberate fraudulent presentation of ONLY pro-AGW data in the scientific and IPCC’s “scientific” data.

Their blatant comments and “adjustments” of temperature data reflect actual changes that were made between 1995 and 2009.

Were they stupid to admit in emails that they were adjusting data to fit the UN’s needs for corrupt data? Yes. But if you “know” you cannot get caught, that you are “doing the right thing” by “saving the earth” (from capitalism and energy-using businesses) - then, well, yes you “need to save the planet - no matter what it takes.”

So, yes, the total amount of the files are true: even if some may have errors.

Was the whole thing faked? No. Not in my opinion.

Not by the responses that the AGW propagandists are presenting.