And that has never happened, and you know it.
guinganbresil: "I think the advocacy should not start IN the science - ignoring data contrary to the 'right' conclusion, biasing peer review to supress science supporting the 'wrong' conclusion - etc."
Those are the accusations which both the British House of Commons and Pennsylvania State University have now found 100% false. Your repetition of them as if they are still valid talking points is dishonest.
guinganbresil: "Although the infamous emails indicate problems I take them with a grain of salt - email rarely contains the context necessary to fully understand the intent (example: 'hide the decline' neferious? Maybe. Maybe not...)"
No, there is no "maybe" about it. Discussing HOW bad some known-bad data are does not even suggest wrongdoing to any honest person trained in science. If you have done ANY real research, you have had to account for measurement error, and you would know why, when PROXY data is all you have, analyzing that data is much more complicated.
Proof positive that there is no ambiguity is the fact that all these problems with the data are announced in the papers that used the data. Because you're not even bothering to compare the stolen data to the published works that those private documents were used to compose, it is clear that what you are looking for is something other than the truth.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment