3 ms·
> this is the dumbest argument ever. I'd say this argument is dumb-er. > you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified") You
by ant5 16y ago
> this is the dumbest argument ever.
I'd say this argument is dumb-er.
> you lose credibility by interjecting small jabs and opinions (ie, "unqualified")
Your comment is amusing given your 'dumbest argument ever' intro, but regardless, that wasn't a jab (or even my own opinion):
"Asked whether it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone claiming instrumental records were unavailable or vital code missing was incompetent, another panel member, Professor Peter Clarke from Edinburgh University, said: "It's very clear that anyone who'd be competent enough to analyse the data would know where to find it. It's also clear that anyone competent could perform their own analysis without let or hindrance.""
- jpwagner 16y agothat is irrelevant to the OP's point
- anthonyb 16y agoHardly. If independent scientists working for 2 days can replicate CRU's results, why all the screaming and shouting over withholding data? Just replicate the results, see if they align with what's been published, and move on.
- jpwagner 16y agoif it's so easy to find, then why is it being deleted from the ftp server? (see email) i don't personally care. think/believe/dream what you want. (i do get particularly peeved when people use language manipulations like "screaming and shouting" to make their point appear sensible because they are clearly not screaming and shouting.)