A simple timeline would be nice. If for instance, funds were given to the shady guy before it was known he was shady... it is not the same type of scandal as if it was the other way around.
Edit: I decided to look into this situataion. Here is the basic timeline:
0. Climate researcher becomes athority on "global warming", the science is assumed OK by most scientists. (This turns out to be false but this is not yet known)
1. June 2009: Grant awarded to climate researcher in good standing.
2. November 2009: Climategate hack occurs
3. December 2009: Climategate scandle breaks
4. January 2010: Somehow mass hysteria breaks out over #1 alleging the funds were awarded in spite of revelations from #2 and #3.
Seems to me there is a deliberate attempt to confuse the order of events. Or worse, accuse the people in charge of being active conspirators in the climategate thing.
Edit: I decided to look into this situataion. Here is the basic timeline:
0. Climate researcher becomes athority on "global warming", the science is assumed OK by most scientists. (This turns out to be false but this is not yet known)
1. June 2009: Grant awarded to climate researcher in good standing.
2. November 2009: Climategate hack occurs
3. December 2009: Climategate scandle breaks
4. January 2010: Somehow mass hysteria breaks out over #1 alleging the funds were awarded in spite of revelations from #2 and #3.
Seems to me there is a deliberate attempt to confuse the order of events. Or worse, accuse the people in charge of being active conspirators in the climategate thing.