Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
I've said from day one that politics trumps science, politics drive science.
....big surprise.
A very big difference between the True Believers and the Skeptics is the Skeptics don't have any intention (as far as I can tell) of taxing me for exhaling. So it's a no-brainer if we are to judge this on the political merits-- skeptics win, skeptics win.
As for the science....
The CRU doesn't have the raw data upon which they base their conclusion that I'm destroying the planet by exhaling.....which is to say, it's not that they're bad scientists but they're not even scientists.
Quote:
|
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. -- Phil Jones, CRU
|
The reason a scientist would make the data available to someone who's aim is to find something wrong with it is because that's science IS and that's what scientists DO. Phil Jones is obviously not a scientist (even though he plays one on tv), hence it's not reasonable to expect a scientific rather than political attack upon his work. |
yep... no doubt... that is a stupid ass statement, and you will be hard pressed to find anybody to defend it.
<edit.. just in case there was any doubt... I was referring to PHIL JONES' quote!>>
but back to your basic point (in THIS post): do you honestly think there is less of a political agenda behind the skeptical side?