3 ms·
If they declined when they did it, why should they back down now? This would mean that not only they polluted the environment, but also are liars (and cowards).
by dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
If they declined when they did it, why should they back down now? This would mean that not only they polluted the environment, but also are liars (and cowards). There is no way they'd admit that.
- philpem 7y agoI don't see why this has been downvoted so far. Inconvenient truth? People hate whistleblowers. "Shoot the messenger. It's the easiest solution."
- ggm 7y agoHN won't let you downvote comments on your own posts so I assure you, I didn't and do not think this comment was downvote-worthy. I might not agree, but it's a valid, if cynical point. I just think that at a level where a peer review paper says "you did this" failure to respond is a fail in two dimensions: Its asocial and fundamentally stupid politically despite the "deny everything" posture every government takes, and its un-scientific: It makes it harder for other people to take your own science seriously, if you refuse to participate full-cycle in the process.