You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Forgive me if I get this wrong... but isn't that tantamount to letting an alleged criminal decide which evidence against him makes it into court?
Not much different than US idiots on CNN last night blaming ther Gulf Oil spill on to the 'British People'
Well, let's deconstruct that, because there are certainly parts I agree with and others I do not.
First the part I agree with: Yes, there are plenty of loud-mouthed idiots in all societies that get their face on the news spouting their ignorance. We seem to have a fair share here in the US (methinks the media doth actively seek them out), but there is certainly no shortage of them in the UK either! Especially as it surrounds the whole AGW scam.
The part I do NOT agree with: There is literally NO COMPARISON between a formal inquiry, which is intended to be fair, transparent, and whose results passed off as "the whole truth", and some nameless yahoo being interviewed on the street by the news media. NO COMPARISON, get that?
To prove there is no comparison, let me lay out what happened in detail:
1) The Oxburgh Inquiry was formed to assess what sorts of wrongdoing may have taken place as a result of the Climategate emails/data released last NOV.
2) Without question, one of the people identified as involved in the Climategate affair (because of his OWN EMAILS, which he never denied being his) was none other than Phil Jones, of EAU CRU. In other words, he was one of the subjects of the inquiry!
3) For him to have ANY sort of ability to influence what is admitted (or worse, rejected) as evidence for that inquiry is a travesty of the entire foundation of what that inquiry should be about! And don't even try to deny this.
So comparing the two is right out. Not a leg to stand on, old man!