OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
You aren't really this stupid, are you?
Actually, yes he is!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
You aren't really this stupid, are you?
Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?Who said that?"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."
OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
Oh, you did.
These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.
"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."
OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
Of course they are grasshopper. And whistleblowers are allowed to expose fraud wherever it occurs, no? Or can whistlblowers only expose bad behavior in companies you don't like?
OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
You aren't really this stupid, are you?
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?Who said that?OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
Oh, you did.
These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?Who said that?
Oh, you did.
These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.
By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.
I mean why not? The Government(s) wanted a particuliar result so they could politically gear up to change behaviours they wanted to change and these creeps were too happy to oblige as the government(s) were paying them to manipulate the data to the government(s) liking...Who said that?"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."
OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
Oh, you did.
These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.
OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?
You aren't really this stupid, are you?
They aren't?
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.
By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.
By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.
The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.
I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.
Why? Why should you provide evidence for your claims? Is that a serious question?Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.
By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.
Why?
You ignore simple facts so wasting time spelling things out is likewise a waste of time. Go find the emails (they are very easy to find) and go through them yourself. You claim to be Doctoral candidate (which I highly doubt) so you should have no trouble reviewing them for yourself.
Of course, though, seeing as you are nothing more then a brainwashed political hack I don't give it much of a chance you will actually look. You're a faithful servant of your masters and to look at their crimes is blasphemy to you.
I understand.
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.
By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.
The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.
I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.
And you had to ask me what scientific integrity is?I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.
By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.
The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.
Great. Show me one in particular. Link or direct quotation. And explain what it reveals that is damning and how.
I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.
I've yet to be pointed to where the evidence of this scientific mis-conduct is. All I have seen so far is "Its there, trust me, just go find it yourself" - which is a very, very unconvincing argument.
I have already passed my defense, BTW, and will be awarded my degree on December 16th.
However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails arent really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.
The fact that information is released at an opportune moment doesn't make it propaganda. Deap Throat wanted to derail the Nixon Adminisration. That didn't make his information bogus. The reason you release negative information is to put a stop to the nefarious activities it exposes.
Obviously, the person behind this release wants to derail the climate conference, but what sane intelligent person wouldn't want to derail a conflaguration of con artists and humbugs?
Data doesn't have to be falsified to be guilty of scientific misconduct. Transparency is a huge part of scientific integrity.In your entire diatribe, you are unable to identify one piece of falsified data
What evidence do we have that man made CO2 has significantly contributed to warming?No allegations regarding the behavior of scientists can EVER suffice as a refutation of global warming. In order to account for the evidence we have, such behavior would have to amount to a conspiracy among thousands of scientists, and in effect the entire scientific community would have to be corrupt from top to bottom -- an assertion utterly without credibility.
Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?Who said that?
Oh, you did.
These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.
Hmmmm.
Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.
I suggest you review this before you defend.
Read this, too: An Insult to All Science
That does nothing to address what I asked for.What evidence do we have that man made CO2 has significantly contributed to warming?No allegations regarding the behavior of scientists can EVER suffice as a refutation of global warming. In order to account for the evidence we have, such behavior would have to amount to a conspiracy among thousands of scientists, and in effect the entire scientific community would have to be corrupt from top to bottom -- an assertion utterly without credibility.
Geez, Sis, do we have to go over this again?
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
From the American Institute of Physics. Real scientists, not internet pretenders.