Skip to comments.
Leaked email climate smear was a PR disaster for UEA
Guardian UK ^
| Monday 23 November 2009 15.19 GMT
| George Marshall
Posted on 11/23/2009 11:13:11 PM PST by dila813
There was no evidence of conspiracy among climate scientists in the leaked emails so why was the University of East Anglia's response so pathetic?
The lay public, when presented with confusing data and competing arguments about climate change, deploy the mental shortcut of believing the people they most trust. Trust in the communicator is therefore crucial.
Unfortunately the three main climate change communicators: politicians, journalists and environmental campaigners, are among the least trusted people in society fighting it out for bottom place in the ranking with lawyers and car salesmen. No one would pay any attention to them at all if they were not drawing on the aquifer of public trust in scientists.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; climategate; cruhack; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; mannmade; meddledscience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 last
To: CedarDave
“this author has been reading different emails than those published. Sorry Mr. Marshall, you have it all wrong.” Climate Outreach and Information Network is a UK registered charity established in 2004 which dedicates itself to helping people to communicate climate change. Its charitable objects are listed on the Charity Commission website as “to promote any charitable purposes at the discretion of the trustees concerning climate change and its impact”.
- AND getting close on £700,000 from DEFRA over two years.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/News/2009/090623c.htm
41
posted on
11/26/2009 8:17:53 AM PST
by
anglian
To: All
Could someone please explain why the following email is not: 1) evidence of aiding and abetting in the destruction of documents in reply to a Freedom of Information request? 2) a violation of criminal law and university standard of ethics? I'm not trying to imply any wrong doing has been done. Only asking why this is not evidence of an offence. The line "I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx" seems very clear in its meaning. _________________________________________________ From: Michael Mann To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400 Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Hi Phil, laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true. I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > >> Mike, > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? > Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. > > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't > have his new email address. > > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. > > I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature > paper!! > > Cheers > Phil > > > >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >
42
posted on
12/11/2009 10:14:00 PM PST
by
ge0050
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson