On Tue, 18 May 2010 01:57:41 -0700, Giga2 wrote:

On 17 May, 13:19, Dawlish wrote:
On May 17, 11:28Â*am, Giga2 wrote:



On 17 May, 07:41, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message


...
On 16 May, 07:51, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

"Giga2" wrote in message

On 14 May, 22:31, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
This is the third ClimateGate article by the Spiegel.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/
world/0,1518,694484,00.html

The Climategate Chronicle
How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised By Axel
Bojanowski

.....
SPIEGEL ONLINE reveals how the war between climate
researchers and climate skeptics broke out, the
tricks the two sides used to outmaneuver each other and how
the conflict
could be resolved.

[rest at URL]

Excellent piece of writing and research again from Spiegel.
Slightly AGW biased but hey! Seems to lack the obvious
conclusion though as well. If the science has been so
corrupted then it cannot be trusted.

I read the whole article and there is no mentioning of the
science being "corrupted".
Did I miss something ?

You yourself mentioned how the politics was corrupted.

I don't recall stating that. Maybe you can quote the section I
wrote that led you to believe that I mentioned that.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Roving Rabbit?

This article
outlines how political activism has infiltrated the scientific
process, bringing the political corruption with it, into the
science.

Politics are often a matter of opinion, and it seems that you call
that "political corruption" (even though I did not use these
words). I tend to think of it as a difference of opinion.

Yes, and really 'opinion' is the thing that corrupts science.
Adovcacy rather than investigation.

I DID state (reflecting SPIEGEL as clear as I could) that climate
scientists have been under "relentless attacks on science from
non-scientific fossil-fuel funded organisations and a few skeptic
scientists". And that this made scientists "cave in" to their
position. SPIEGEL actually describes this very well.

But I want to re-state that the science itself is fine. Even the
SPIEGEL does not at all dispute that.
To claim that "science has been so corrupted" is a completely
incorrect statement.

Rather than stating "science has been corrupted" it's better to
state that "science has been compromised" (just like SPIEGEL
stated) by fossil-fuel funded organisations who want nothing but
create confusion and delay in the process towards understanding how
we humans change the climate of our own planet.

Â*Rob

Really so all the 'corruption' is on one side of the debate. How
convenient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From someone who lies so regularly and cherry picks data so obviously
giga, that is, I'm afraid, rich.

Please cite just one instance where I lied. I do not appreciate such
accusations, which amounts to slander by the way, and is completely
without foundation.

Dawlish is trying one of the Alinsky tactics. They're desperate - that's
all they have left. Just consider the source and laugh it off.