4 ms·

That's the worst you saw? Did you download them? How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate' If you think that Saiers is in the gr

That's the worst you saw? Did you download them? How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate' If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

mcantelon 17y ago
That's political skullduggery, not falsifying data.
- dejb 17y ago
  Agreed. But I think the political skulduggery based on your position regarding the data is also concerning. If you define the enemy as someone with an opposing viewpoint you are obviously not in a position to properly consider that viewpoint. I'm not a sceptic but this sort of attitude does open up the possibility in my mind that the scientific consensus in climate change could in part be an artefact of this political skulduggery.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- ErrantX 17y ago
  which is probably worse: their supposed to be climate scientists :) (I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
  - crystalis 17y ago
    They're/There/Their going to oust you, next.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - ams6110 17y ago
    If you think there's no politics in science, I have to ask if you have any familiarity with it. University research, for example, is CHOCK FULL of politics.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      oh yes I realise that - it's still not a good thing (which is what I was commenting on).
- efaith 17y ago
  Indeed, but it imperils one of the major points made against the skeptics and vindicates one of the major points made by the skeptics.
gjm11 17y ago
No, I didn't download them. (As I said: "The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was ...".) As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.

mcantelon 17y ago

That's political skullduggery, not falsifying data.

dejb 17y ago
Agreed. But I think the political skulduggery based on your position regarding the data is also concerning. If you define the enemy as someone with an opposing viewpoint you are obviously not in a position to properly consider that viewpoint. I'm not a sceptic but this sort of attitude does open up the possibility in my mind that the scientific consensus in climate change could in part be an artefact of this political skulduggery.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ErrantX 17y ago
which is probably worse: their supposed to be climate scientists :) (I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
- crystalis 17y ago
  They're/There/Their going to oust you, next.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- ams6110 17y ago
  If you think there's no politics in science, I have to ask if you have any familiarity with it. University research, for example, is CHOCK FULL of politics.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    oh yes I realise that - it's still not a good thing (which is what I was commenting on).
efaith 17y ago
Indeed, but it imperils one of the major points made against the skeptics and vindicates one of the major points made by the skeptics.

gjm11 17y ago

No, I didn't download them. (As I said: "The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was ...".) As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.