Climategate Case Closed: 'No Malpractice' By Climate Unit

Vague references to your alleged scientific credentials tend to undermine your credibility, not improve it. While realpolitic and I admit to being amateurs, we are credible because we are demonstrably interested and well-read. When you assert that you are a scientist ("folks like myself that work in science and technology") you had better have a publication record to back it up.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=stefan+zeiss
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=s+zeiss
"We also thank Dr. Stefan Ballmer, Carl Zeiss Switzerland, for lending equipment and useful suggestions."

No, you don't have to be a published climate scientist to try to understand the science, and discussion with your peers, climate science amateurs like myself, can be helpful to furthering your understanding. But when you claim scientific credentials you don't have, you reveal yourself to be a liar and lose all credibility, forever.

So unless "Stefan Zeiss" is a pseudonym AND you have published climate science to your credit under your real name, you owe realpolitic an apology for faking your credentials. If it was me, I'd require an apology at the top of the thread. Maybe realpolitic will be more generous. That is for him to decide, not me and not you.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost