IANAL, but it is interesting to me that in the court of law these emails would be inadmissible, according to NYT's assertion that the emails were stolen and circulated. Yet, in the 'court' of academia, information is king. It is nice to know, regardless of the outcome of these results or their scrutinies, that we as a people pay less attention to red tape or an irrelevant legal standard when the credibility of information gathering is at stake. Just a thought. While there are nay-sayers on either side of this investigation, I insist that there is nothing wrong with the objective scrutiny of any falsehoods in the realm of scientific research. The scientific community should expect it and embrace it. If they do not, this is what will create doubt. I would be more at ease with the NOAA if they had revealed the error displayed in DeathToBill's comment, wherein another reporter identifies a discrepancy not mentioned by the NYT. While I do not particularly fault NOAA for NYT's words, I doubt that NYT is responsible for the missing information. That, however, is also up for debate.

Wasn't there a three-strike rule for terrorism, too? [/tongue]

Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. ^^ The Slashdot Effect is with us and very, very real, my friends. :)

And NOW they have no bandwidth. Ahh, Slashdot, you never fail.