The part about settling a feud. The reason for the feud was that one scientist dared question one of the teams data. So, no the quote was not out of context. Because the scientist did say the “truth” was not as important and he was talking about scientific work not opinions.

Then for some quotes instead of placing things in context with the emails they have to qoute different sources. Look it’s ok that Phil wanted to bias the graphics, because in the final report it didn’t make it. That’s kinda of like saying “Bob wasn’t able to break into the safe so it wasn’t a crime.”

Is it confirmed that “FOIA” as agent of the CG2 emails is in fact the same person (or agency) as “RC” who alerted us that “a miracle has occured” for CG1?

Just thinking about the East Anglia police, who in support of the CRU “hack” investigation, obtained for G. Boulton — among others — a £8,910 thumb drive or memory stick purported to contain an archive of CRU emails sufficient to provide the lacking context of the CG1 extract.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/27/climategate-20-in-context.html

I’m thinking once several such sticks were released out in the wild, the range of possibilities for leakers opens up drastically. What if a cop who began with no knowledge or interest in the climate problem, after reviewing the archives in this thumb drive over two years, found himself in agreement with the original “hacker”?

What if one of the tame scientists in the investigation team who does worry about the climate, nevertheless is more worried about the unfair play exhibited by his competitors?

What if a media mogul’s dirty tricks specialist gets hold of the stuff from an inside source and thinks he’s found a great way to sell papers?

What if the team making the copies for the stick kept copies of work in progress, just because — and then upgraded their systems letting an old hard drive be sold for salvage?

In short, is there any particular reason to suspect one lone hacker, acting in isolation again, or are we perhaps dealing with “the man with the umbrella on the shady knoll” at this point?

“The very first rule of Scooby-Doo, the single premise that sits at the heart of their adventures, is that the world is full of grown-ups who lie to kids, and that it’s up to those kids to figure out what those lies are and call them on it, even if there are other adults who believe those lies with every fiber of their being. And the way that you win isn’t through supernatural powers, or even through fighting. The way that you win is by doing the most dangerous thing that any person being lied to by someone in power can do: You think.”

“The bad guys in Scooby-Doo prey on superstition, because that’s the one thing that an otherwise rational person doesn’t really think through. It’s based on belief, not evidence, which is a crucial element for the show. If, for example, someone knocks on your door and claims to be a police officer, you’re going to want to see a badge because that’s the tangible evidence that you’ve come to expect to prove their claim. If, however, you hold the belief that the old run-down theater has a phantom in the basement, then the existence of that phantom himself — or at least a reasonably convincing costume — is all the evidence that you need to believe that you were right all along. The bad guys are just reinforcing a belief that the other characters already have, and that they don’t need any evidence before because it’s based in superstition, not reason.”

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/11/25/ask-chris-81-scooby-doo-and-secular-humanism/#ixzz1fUHsSkj8

Not that I would suggest that any of The Team are actually lying with their trunkation.