Subject: Re: Re: The Smoking Gun Thread Author: cyberchrome | Date: 03/12/2009 10:07:25 | Number: 12190the scientists writing the IPCC reportsare very far from being neutral, have no intention of presenting a balanced picture, and will doanything they can to suppress dissenting views.Yet another assertion, but no supporting evidence.. Look, I am trying to be sceptical here, in the best sense of the word, and what a sceptic values above all else is evidence. We've had loads and loads of assertions: the mails show 'X', the mails demonstrate 'Y'. But not a single quote in support, not a single example. Not a single quote in support, not a single example? Complete rubbish. I counted 9 direct quotes in the list I gave you. Does TMF approve of false representation of an opponent's data?What we have had is a list from Bishop Hill (reproduced in full minus updates and comments, something TMF are not keen on btw, an extract and a link being the preferred means of citing work by another author) without attribution. Now BH knows full well that >90% of his visitors will just take his list at face value and pass it on, without the tedious business of checking whether the mails cited do indeed bear the interpretation he has placed upon them. I didn't know that the original list came from a site called Bishop Hill. Do you have evidence to support your assertion that this list is indeed the original work of that site? TMF isn't keen on bald statements of fact with no supporting evidence, you know. Since this whole scandal has erupted it has become extremely difficult to see the wood from the trees in Google. The site I got it from did not attribute it either.This is the exact opposite of scepticism. My aim in this thread was to compile a concise repository of the worst examples of malpractice with the supporting evidence. We seem to be drifting away from that a little. Is it really that difficult a request?Given that you are unlikely to accept anyone else's interpretation I think it's likely to be a huge waste of time. As I've already said, the interpretations of the most heinous emails, which I've read, accord very well with the descriptions on that list. Whether you accept them or not is now neither here nor there for me.PS There were over 600 contributing authors to IPCC WG1, with a two-stage open review process. I provided a link to the freely-available comments and responses in the Vincent Gray thread.You provided a link? Big deal. Then you demand a body of original work from everyone else? Double standards? Not much, eh? A case of "do as I say, not do as I do" IMHO.Cheers,J
© Copyright 1998-2013, The Motley Fool Limited. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only.The Motley Fool, Fool, and the "Fool" logo are registered trademarks of The Motley Fool, Inc.Place of Reg: England & Wales. Company Reg No: 3736872. VAT Reg No: 945 6990 68. Registered Office: 5th Floor, 60 Charlotte Street London W1T 2NU.
Page load time and server: