TerryM Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you really think there is nothing wrong when the DOE and CRU cooperate to block FOIA requests, then I don't know what you think is bad...When money is taxed out of willing and unwilling citizens to fund research for the greater good, the public should be entitled to know what is happening and how it happened. There's really nothing left to be said on this. Good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Good! Yeah, reality bites for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you really think there is nothing wrong when the DOE and CRU cooperate to block FOIA requests, then I don't know what you think is bad...When money is taxed out of willing and unwilling citizens to fund research for the greater good, the public should be entitled to know what is happening and how it happened. There's really nothing left to be said on this. Thats what I meant by "poor ethics". It doesn't show scientific fraud, but it ws the highlight of the last climategate and CRU has become more open with data since then, it seems. Remember these emails are from the same set that was originally hacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you really think there is nothing wrong when the DOE and CRU cooperate to block FOIA requests, then I don't know what you think is bad...When money is taxed out of willing and unwilling citizens to fund research for the greater good, the public should be entitled to know what is happening and how it happened. There's really nothing left to be said on this. If you were a scientist being mercilessly bombarded with FOIA requests for information already in the public domain how would you and your colleagues respond? The scumbags that created this catch 22 situation for these climate scientists walk around laughing their asses off, totally without mention in all of this. The skeptic's disinformation/defamation machine doing us all a big favor which you support? They should be found out and prosecuted/persecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The skeptic's disinformation/defamation machine doing us all a big favor which you support? They should be found out and prosecuted/persecuted. I take offense to that, rusty. Most skeptics are not out to spread disinformation and political nonsense, those who play by that routine are easy to spot out. There are plenty of skeptical climate scientists with honest intentions, so grouping skeptics like that and spreading "hot air" yourself in doing that isn't exactly an act of scientific high class. Anyone who thinks the matter is "settled" is kidding themselves, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you were a scientist being mercilessly bombarded with FOIA requests for information already in the public domain how would you and your colleagues respond? The scumbags that created this catch 22 situation for these climate scientists walk around laughing their asses off, totally without mention in all of this. The skeptic's disinformation/defamation machine doing us all a big favor which you support? They should be found out and prosecuted/persecuted. Rusty, if you believe the bolded applies to all FOIA request then you need to start over from scratch and read up on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The skeptic's disinformation/defamation machine doing us all a big favor which you support? They should be found out and prosecuted/persecuted. Prosecuted and or persecuted? Very scientific of you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you were a scientist being mercilessly bombarded with FOIA requests for information already in the public domain how would you and your colleagues respond? The scumbags that created this catch 22 situation for these climate scientists walk around laughing their asses off, totally without mention in all of this. The skeptic's disinformation/defamation machine doing us all a big favor which you support? They should be found out and prosecuted/persecuted. So now you want to put these people in jail? wow wtf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted December 23, 2011 Author Share Posted December 23, 2011 If you were a scientist being mercilessly bombarded with FOIA requests for information already in the public domain how would you and your colleagues respond? The scumbags that created this catch 22 situation for these climate scientists walk around laughing their asses off, totally without mention in all of this. The skeptic's disinformation/defamation machine doing us all a big favor which you support? They should be found out and prosecuted/persecuted. Oh freakin' please!! Can you embellish any better?? Come get me!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Prosecuted and or persecuted? Very scientific of you... For crimes against humanity! Look, one side or the other is perpetuating a myth. On one side we have climate science and it's practitioners, on the other varied interests which somehow feel threated by the implications of the science. Both sides cast stones at the other, but only one is telling the truth in this highly polarized issue. Both of these interests are backed by independent sources of funding, the general revenues of government funding science along with the help of environmental groups, the deep pockets of political think tanks and industry advising and funding the other. You decide who has more credibility. Unless as a skeptic you are a paid lobbyist, industry insider or associated with one of those think tanks....these stones of mine do not apply to you as an individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropopause_Fold Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 For crimes against humanity! Look, one side or the other is perpetuating a myth. On one side we have climate science and it's practitioners, on the other varied interests which somehow feel threated by the implications of the science. Both sides cast stones at the other, but only one is telling the truth in this highly polarized issue. Both of these interests are backed by independent sources of funding, the general revenues of government funding science along with the help of environmental groups, the deep pockets of political think tanks and industry advising and funding the other. You decide who has more credibility. Unless as a skeptic you are a paid lobbyist, industry insider or associated with one of those think tanks....these stones of mine do not apply to you as an individual. if you are referring to AGW as a whole that's simply not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 if you are referring to AGW as a whole that's simply not true. I am not speaking of scientific research but rather the nature of how information is motivated and disseminated. On the one hand we have mainstream institutions which engage the scientific consensus of the climate research community and on the other a PR machine which seeks to cast the science in a bad light and erode public confidence in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I am not speaking of scientific research but rather the nature of how information is motivated and disseminated. On the one hand we have mainstream institutions which engage the scientific consensus of the climate research community and on the other a PR machine which seeks to cast the science in a bad light and erode public confidence in it. Regardless of intent, you don't prosecute someone for filing an FOIA request, dude. And neither side knows the "truth" because these die-hard predictions of catastrophe have not verified as of yet. There is no "truth" in predictions based on a theory until they are validated and only by the means of that theory...not possible take-aways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.