From their own website. Any group that started with any sort of political affiliation and is looking to fight strictly “liberal bias of the media” should instantly be suspect when it comes to their objectivity as well. Please use objective and unbiased sources if you are trying to prove a point, not the John Birch Society and various right wing, conservative and fundamentalist blogs. That is not “fact” any more than if I found the most liberal of publications and sites to prove my point. If I want propoganda, it isn’t hard to find, but propoganda is still that and is not proof of anything.

About the MRC (Media Research Center)

The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

HAHAHAHAHA!! That’s funny. Distriction of data despite a FOIA request! This just gets better and better. Now the IPCC has done exactly what I said it would. According to the IPCC head, the scientists were “indiscreete”. And he goes after the hacker.

Hate to be the one to say it….

but I told you so.

I don’t want to give the impression that I condone what the hacker did. It was and is a crime if caught they should do the time. Period.

Shuold the e-mails be dismissed out of hand because of this crime? No.

It’s too important to humanity and our tax laws that the science be spot on. The fact that the CRU has so far dodged any responsibility to discredit these mails is telling in of itself. Especially since it’s reputation is on the line. Any good science be it genetics, astronomy, mathmatics, etc should be replicable. 100% Global warming science is not there, and if these e-mails turn out to be true then ALL faith in the sciences will suffer. As my algebra teacher in HS used to preach…. show your work.

The CRU needs to come clean and go public or they will be hung in the cort of opinion. (such as ours)

Gavin Scmidt is just one scientist. I used the Wizard of Oz analogy in one of my earlier comments. Apparently the discovered contents of these hacked emails is so damning, that even some top-tier global warming supporters are breaking a sweat (and not because of higher global temperatures either).

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20091123052812.aspx

Last night on his show Art Bell, who believes that global warming is real, said he read the emails and found no smoking gun. I scanned a few. I may read more later.

Leading scientists, such as Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context (link)

Any way read and see for yourselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

What ever you are taking… up the dosage.

And I am not an infadel, I am a pagan. Get it right.

That Hell will ever ‘freeze over’ is a false prophecy and your faith is misguided.

I’ll keep my thermometer in the wind and pray for your conversion. See you at the Oscars!

You state; “Our judgment should be based on the science, not on the opinions of pols or on the interest of the oil, gas coal business.” And I completely agree with you. However, if the science is flawed what then?

Since the CRU won’t release the data to peer review we only have their word for it. There is no supporting data and many in the science community itself doubt the CRU’s findings. But since they won’t release the data to peer review there is no way of validating their claims.

Someone talked about buying a rolex of a masked man in an alley. I say they have done the same thing with global warming since we can’t review the data.

I don’t “blindly” believe everything I read, hear, or am told. Neither should any intelligent human. However that is exactly what the CRU wants us to do. IF they have nothing to hide and the science is sound RELEASE THE DATA TO PEER REVIEW!! Like ALL scientists do.

Other wise you are buying the rolex of global warming.