On 18 May, 10:36, Dawlish wrote:
On May 18, 9:57*am, Giga2 wrote:
On 17 May, 13:19, Dawlish wrote:
On May 17, 11:28*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/...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.
*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.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope, I'm sure you don't, so stop lying about what Phil Jones said.
Lack of citation noted.
"There has been no warming since 1995". There's the foundation.
Crystal clear. That's a lie and guess what that makes you?
Is that a quote from me? If so how do you know it is a lie? There may
have been no warming since 1995-2009. Indeed there may have been
slight cooling.
It's very easy to stop being picked up each time you lie about this,
try changing what you say, so you don't lie.
I'm am always careful to add '~' or something, I don't see why I
should be over complicated about it. And again I have had enough of
discussing this distraction, so don't expect me to reply if you bring
it up again, except by the word '*CITE*'