There is no climate gate. The stuff being pimped was obtained by hacking a computer at the Climate Research Unit, cherry-picked, distorted and disseminated by conspiracy theorists. Much of the excerpts were taken out of context, for example, "hiding" doesn't mean deceptively withholding information, in scientific jargon. Rather, it referees to the not using data that may diverge for reasons other then the phonomena being discussed. Similarly "trick" is just a way to describe a method to deal with a difficult issue, not a way to deceive. In fact, none of these "revelations" are anything new, as the data has been available since 1998. It's the brainwashed, lazy and unthinking that buys conspiracy theories based on stolen, trumped up and exaggerated misinformation. This is just one more illustration of how far the war on science will go and how deceptive, dishonest, duplicitous and capricious those who hate science are. When someone substitutes name calling for science, he's not making a scientific argument, he's trying to make a play on emotions. Not good for science, not good for anyone.
Simply put, as far as climate gate goes, there is no "there" there.
The post I made were all my words, not a shread was "cut and paste" I've never cut and pasted any work on any discussion group or any blog, and I never well. Neither have I ever plagerized any work from anyone else, so you are making an utterly false and phony accusation. It is certainly a conspiracy theory, the info was hacked, stolen and distorted.{emplasis added} There is no science behind any of it, and the brainwashed are those who accept it without even knowing where it came from.
The post I made were all my words, not a shread was "cut and paste" I've never cut and pasted any work on any discussion group or any blog, and I never well. Neither have I ever plagerized any work from anyone else, so you are making an utterly false and phony accusation. It does demonstrate something interesting about those who oppose the science, when confronted with truth, they resort to personal attacks, name calling and phony accusations. It says more about the person writing the personal attacts then about the quality of the science.
It is certainly a conspiracy theory, the info was hacked, stolen and distorted. There is no science behind any of it, and the brainwashed are those who accept it without even knowing where it came from.
Also, even though the "hidden" data was excluded from some of the graphs, it was published in the jounals of climate change and have been availble for 10 years now. Why would anyone publish data they want to hide? It's total nonsense.
And what is your evidence the e-mails were obtained by hacking or theft? Have you ruled out that it was a whistle-blower?
Moreover, I have been in academics probably as long as you have been. So far as I know, the word "hide" has only one meaning in the context of scientific papers. Can you provide any credible substantiation for the definition that you claim exists, such as from the CBE or elsewhere?
John
It wasn't a whistle blower. You linked data without even knowing where it came from. You're problem, not mine. Google is your friend.
Hide has many definitions. I ask again, why would anyone publish data they want to keep hidden?
Seriously, I do think for myself. I think it is you who has the problem of puppeting. You link a buch of nonsense then accuse anyone who writes a original, well thought out opposition peice of cut and paste. I don't care what how you want to back track now, you've already shown you are capable of making false and irrseponsible accusations. What else are you capable of, eh? BTW, rather than a spelling contest, how about trying to say what you mean and mean what you say? I don't copy other's works, I don't parrot Al Gore or anyone else. I think for myself. You should try it sometimes.
What link?
Please provide a real link to the primary data to which you refer as later being "hidden."
John
Which you are you (BrownOut) referring to? Please pardon the grammar.
John
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?