Dunno about that. The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was the one about "adding in the real data to hide the decline", or whatever the exact wording was, and they explicitly discuss that one. (I am making no comment on whether what they say about it is convincing, nor about whether it's correct.)
How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate'
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics
camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this,
we could go through official AGU channels to get him
ousted.
Agreed. But I think the political skulduggery based on your position regarding the data is also concerning. If you define the enemy as someone with an opposing viewpoint you are obviously not in a position to properly consider that viewpoint. I'm not a sceptic but this sort of attitude does open up the possibility in my mind that the scientific consensus in climate change could in part be an artefact of this political skulduggery.
which is probably worse: their supposed to be climate scientists :)
(I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
If you think there's no politics in science, I have to ask if you have any familiarity with it. University research, for example, is CHOCK FULL of politics.
No, I didn't download them. (As I said: "The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was ...".)
As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.
