you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified") and irrelevant commentary (ie, the relevance of the surprise-factor is...?)
i personally think the whole issue is silly because laymen are not familiar with the typical processes in academia.
but my opinion aside, regardless of its convenience for the scientists involved and regardless of its irrelevance to the validity of the scientific argument, the intention is clear from the above linked emails to hide data from the "contrarians".
> you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified")
Your comment is amusing given your 'dumbest argument ever' intro, but regardless, that wasn't a jab (or even my own opinion):
"Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
Hardly. If independent scientists working for 2 days can replicate CRU's results, why all the screaming and shouting over withholding data? Just replicate the results, see if they align with what's been published, and move on.
if it's so easy to find, then why is it being deleted from the ftp server? (see email)
i don't personally care. think/believe/dream what you want.
(i do get particularly peeved when people use language manipulations like "screaming and shouting" to make their point appear sensible because they are clearly not screaming and shouting.)
Go look at places like climateaudit.org. Plenty of screaming and shouting there. "Fraud", etc. If they'd only put 2 days worth of that energy into something productive...
Comments
this is the dumbest argument ever.
you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified") and irrelevant commentary (ie, the relevance of the surprise-factor is...?)
i personally think the whole issue is silly because laymen are not familiar with the typical processes in academia.
but my opinion aside, regardless of its convenience for the scientists involved and regardless of its irrelevance to the validity of the scientific argument, the intention is clear from the above linked emails to hide data from the "contrarians".
case closed.
> this is the dumbest argument ever.
I'd say this argument is dumb-er.
> you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified")
Your comment is amusing given your 'dumbest argument ever' intro, but regardless, that wasn't a jab (or even my own opinion):
"Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
that is irrelevant to the OP's point
Hardly. If independent scientists working for 2 days can replicate CRU's results, why all the screaming and shouting over withholding data? Just replicate the results, see if they align with what's been published, and move on.
if it's so easy to find, then why is it being deleted from the ftp server? (see email)
i don't personally care. think/believe/dream what you want.
(i do get particularly peeved when people use language manipulations like "screaming and shouting" to make their point appear sensible because they are clearly not screaming and shouting.)
Go look at places like climateaudit.org. Plenty of screaming and shouting there. "Fraud", etc. If they'd only put 2 days worth of that energy into something productive...
o the haters, they keep hating