Quote:
Originally Posted by Stimpy
I won't disagree that is a possibility. Another possibility is someone who views issues with a broader perspective and has observed the cost of petroleum beyond the price at the pump. In the last decade the United States has engaged in a war with a country that now looks like nothing more than an effort to control over a region where the most oil in the world is produced. They have also experienced two of the most devastating coastal events that has released raw crude into the ocean and caused numerous dead zones because of it. Pragmatically it makes sense to start moving away from reliance on petroleum products.
The comment is about the column, not the inquiries. I said the column was weak, and I stand by that comment. Some demands for investigation are superfluous and not worthy of the effort or expense to conduct. Without being privy to the details of the request for the original investigation it is impossible to say was handled inappropriately or not. Since the original emails released were very selective in nature, and obtained through illegal means in their own right, I would say that condemning any review or inquiry without being privy to all details is, as I called the column, weak.
|
Stimpy, you're missing the point. The column is critical about the inquiries and I can at least vouch for some of the points as they pertain to the Muir-Russel report. If you read the report, which you haven't, the details of the scope of inquiry are clearly stated within the document, so to suggest the columnist isn't privy to those details is blatantly incorrect. Sure, you stand by your comment, but you don't back it up with anything. It's a baseless opinion. The comment you've chosed to back up your opinion has nothing to do with the column at all - it's a typical eco-soap-box rant about so-called irrefutable science and the opposing force of big oil money. What does that have to do with a commentary on the inquiries into Climategate (emails only, by the way.)