Climategate 2.0, does this hurt the Global Warming cause?

Climategate seriously harms the credibility of Jones, Hughes, Bradley, Mann, Briffa and few others who demonstrated that science is not high on their agenda. Their agenda is too promote their phoney hockey stick. Alarmists realized early on that the mideval warming and little ice age pretty much was going to kill their attempts to alert people to the dangers of our CO2 mission. They felt that whatever was needed to smooth out the previous variation was justified. They were rewarded with their distortions and lies with money, grants and power. Facts are stubborn things and we are beginning to see who these people are, at least some of us are. Some people will excuse any behavior so long as they blame humans and capitalism.

What other conclusion could I possibly draw? I would suggest some people not going out into the woods because they apparently couldn't see the tree in front of their face.

The original "climategate" has been investigated numerous times, by numerous organizations, and no scientific fraud or malfeasance has been found. What was found was that people don't always talk about each other nicely in private communications--imagine that. The original climategate had some effect, this will have much less because (1) there seems to be little in it that is at all substantive, and (2) we've been through this before and the scientists were all cleared.

However, just because it won't have much effect doesn't mean that it will be smooth sailing for people trying to prevent further warming. When people are out of work, as too many are right now, their priorities shift to getting back to work, regardless of what it may mean to the environment. Also, people tend to think global warming is a big deal when there are large killer heat waves and hurricanes, and not think about it too much other times. Regardless of whether or not there is a basis for it, people's feeling about AGW are dependent on recent weather.

By the way, AGW is not a "cause," is a scientific effect.

A good portion of the hype around climategate 1 was feed by the media and in particular the Rupert Murdoch owned media (and he owns a lot) a good portion of the rest of the media joined in on climategate 1 as well, but as the story fizzled with the release of the inquiry into the mater they lost interest. During the Cancun climate conference deniers tried a similar tactic releasing a new set of beat up "evidence" the global media pretty much ignored them this time.

I think the media this time will wait to see the source of the emails and if they are even real before going off half ****** again.

Debate about what exactly? The only thing that should be brought up for debate regarding this is the openness of it as that is all it deals with. People often read things into incidents that are not there and aren't true. This is what happened during the last climategate fiasco and I'm sure it will happen this time around as well. Those who deny the evidence of anthropogenic global warming will, no doubt, read things into this and come to the conclusion in their deranged little minds that it's a huge conspiracy. they can not see that this is the second time this has happened a week prior to a major climate meeting. They do not see that they are being lead around by a string. It's actually pretty pathetic.

Edit: Ian... you understand what the term 'cherrypicking' means right? They are taking quotes out of context and lying about them to forward their agenda. What exactly do you consider lying? If you want to look at the 'factual' emails then look at them don't look at cherry picked quotes.

Ho hum. Climategate 1.0 was a non-event, having been thoroughly investigated and dismissed. 2.0 will put people to sleep even faster. Check out New York Times article below.

Remember that scientists are human beings too, and will sometimes get snarly and make catty remarks about each other. Sometimes they argue about the science. Usually they think that is fun; that's how science works. Hypothesize, test, debate, test, analyze, and finally find something that works, much like working with the family to find a best recipe for your pumpkin pie tomorrow. Given that scientists tend to argue, how could anyone think scientists are part of a vast conspiracy to lie about climate change? They are like herding cats...very independent minded, but very driven to discover the real truth.

What Climategate 2.0?, there no such thing, there never was a Climategate, your fever dreams are getting the best of you

not likely. in fact it;s likely to show how stupid the deniers are.

yes, the science is always open for debate. You can start a debate about gravity theory too, but why waste your time?

no.

because its impossible to "hurt" a dead horse no matter how fervently the dogmatic promoters of AGW try to reanimate the 2 year old dried bones of that dead horse.

2.0 just reaffirms that the "science" behind AGW has been grossly & clumsily manipulated from the beginning.

http://wakeup-world.com/2011/05/13/solar-system-cl...

earth isn't the only planet experiencing global warming

<"Climategate 2.0" is lies about science.>

Uhhh...who is exactly lying? The "scientists" involved with the "cause"? I take it you mean the "deniers" like myself but how exactly is releasing FACTUAL emails lying?

Reality just really isn't a concern with you guys anymore is it?