Delingpoled…

E.M.Smith
"....Oh? So the request to delete email was a subjective act? I see… Not yet ready to grasp the truth by the horns in Merry Old England…

The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware of the context of the columnist’s robust views – clearly recognisable as his subjective opinion – that the scientists were “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”, and that their work was “shoddy” and “mendacious”. In the circumstances, it did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Oh, now that’s a low blow, to accuse him of being “robust”, that’s tantamount to calling him a “model abusing lier” in “climate science” circles! How Could They! ;-)

But at least we can say that: Under the Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code; “the scientists were ‘untrustworthy, unreliable, and entirely unfit’” and “their work was ‘shoddy’ and ‘mendacious’.”

What a world… "