I understand where you guys are coming from, and, based on what is out there, I do not blame you for your thoughts at all.

I know that you have the brain horsepower to pull in the information that is out there, and you are not alone in your thinking by far.

No one has ever accused me of being a lightweight, either, in reviewing scientific literature, and grasping information requiring multidisciplinary examination. And no one has yet pulled the wool over my eyes.

In my view you are absolutely correct in your criticisms of those who are overreacting and acting like idiots (Ecowatch), or those who profess knowledge that they don't have (Gore). But speaking from my experience and review, I must disabree with you in that I believe that you are way off the mark in your interpretation of those emails, and, in fact incorrect at the conclusions that you draw from them that you reiterated above. I gave some references earlier that I hope you took the time to look at. As such, in my opinion, making such accusations in your essays weakens your credibility on your very valid points, and I mean no disrespect to you when I say that. Quite the contrary, I think that you should keep on soldiering on on those points. As a matter of fact, Media, neither in your post above, nor in any of your essays that I have seen, have you quoted from any of those emails for someone to respond to. Your text is strictly accusatory without providing examples. In other words, you don't substantiate your accusations in your texts. Now, your essays are not meant to be scientific papers, and I understand that. But if someone challenges your conclusions, I would expect you to be happy to substantiate them (if you could take the time - which is getting harder and harder for all of us!).

I took those quotes from the emails that were repeated on Fox News, looked up what they referred to, and came to the same conclusions as everyone else who bothered to read the papers that the emails referred to, including completely independent science organizations, around the world. Fox and others took quotes out of context, did not understand what they were looking at, and plain didn't do their homework.

John, have you ever considered that everything that NASA has done is completely transparent, including their papers published as early as 2003 about the impacts of urban areas on their studies, a topic that your lawyer friend referred to? It is BECAUSE they are so transparent that a fast-talking lawyer like the one who you quoted could paint a picture of deceipt, when, in fact, there is none there. Have you ever stopped to consider that the scientists at NASA are but a minority in number of those in the world who have put their minds to this problem?

Anyway, I am going to pop a beer because it is hot down here in Florida!

Keep on soldiering on.

Perstare et praestare. Per aspera ad astra.