Realclimate got caught with their hand in the cookie jar when the original "CRU" emails got out, IIRC.
They were offering carte-blanche moderation power on the site to one side only in the debate.
They were offering carte-blanche moderation power on the site to one side only in the debate.
This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like “hide the decline”) and then hyped into “Climategate”.
That is a lovely two-step there: this keruffle about a footnote is largely meaningless so it is essentially meaningless that the head of one of the most prestigious research institutions in the world successfully destroyed evidence rather than handing it over to opposed investigators.
Which claims are those? One of the problems with this debate is that both sides keep on going "but that's not the main issue, it's something else" and then don't specify what the main issue is.