Tornado Alley (PROG)

[StephanieVanbryce]

It's really upsetting to see your 'freeper MANIPULATION AND outright LYING' of even a dailymail article by 'derbyshire'. I wonder if there is a law against it .. there isn't - too bad. [ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462004/posts ]

1st. Your post & free republics (where you got it from) proclaims Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits he hid data - because it was 'standard practice'
that's a lie now isn't it ? free republic lied & manipulated the article from the dailymail. let me make this clear .. The dailymail lied. freerepublic lied and you brought the lie to ihub .

..here is the ACTUAL heading of the dailymail piece Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data see where freepers manipulated the daily mail heading ? where in the heading of the dailymail does it say "because it was 'standard practice" ? the answer to my question is NOWHERE it says it NOWHERE in the article [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html ]

And here is where the dailymail manipulated/lied in their heading of the article - in the body of their own piece the daily mail states this

But yesterday Professor Jones - in his first public appearance since the scandal broke - denied manipulating the figures.

Looking pale and clasping his shaking hands in front of him, he told MPs: 'I have obviously written some pretty awful emails.'

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

'I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,' he said.

That is really quite different than what freerepublic & the dailymail implied with their maniupulation/lies of the facts, in their dishonest article now, isn't it ?