Well, the scientist that was more vocal against the deniers in his emails got death threats thanks to the efforts of the ones who stole and released the emails.
Persistent is not the word I would use on the denialists.
Whatever, that’s the way it goes. What’s your opinion of Daniel Ellsberg?
Death threats are the way to go? :dubious:
If you can show me the Daniel Ellsberg of the cherry picked stolen CRU emails then I would give you my opinion.
As has been demonstrated many times, the information presented so far, has been cherry picked, misleading and a repetition of denial points already debunked.
But thank you for allowing to point out that whoever did this is also a coward for not coming forward and explaining his reasons.
I’m reminded of the controversy that arose in the 1950s over Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision” theory. In a nut(ty)shell, Velikovsky put forward the theory that in historical times the Solar System had undergone a cataclysmic reordering due to the creation of the planet that would later be called Venus, and that accounts of a series of resulting natural disasters survived in garbled form as the mythology of several cultures.
Velikovsky was about as credible as Von Daniken, but the reaction of mainstream science was to actively persecute the propagation of his claims, in a decidedly unscientific way where contemptuous silence would have served better.
I think that is a good point, of course that advise was also followed by most researchers, but the stolen emails gave voice to that contempt. I would think that that was one of the reasons for the theft.
No more contemptuous silence.
They are the way it goes. When you rephrase it like that you turn resignation into approval. The basic fact of the matter is this is the way politics goes.
Why the contingency?
This seems to be the consensus on both sides of their opponents.
Right, because coming forward and admitted you committed fraud is what a brave man would do. It would be oh so noble right? After he says his piece I guess he could fall on his sword too.
I think these sort of romantic ethical notions are trite. We praise whistleblowers we approve of and denounce the ones we don’t. That’s just the nature of the game. He played his role, and now you play yours. While you’ve been citing your case quite well, you’re still peppering it with appeals to emotion. Whether or not the whistleblower is a coward is immaterial. There will be a trial.
I don’t see why an impassioned emotional response is important whether it be silent contempt or violent disagreement.
Why must we despise those whose theories are wrong?
Nope, your premise is flawed, the guys who stole the emails are not whistle blowers but seeders of discord.
Getting the Pentagon papers into the discussion is an appeal to emotion, that case is not the same, the evidence showed the papers told the truth. The evidence shows the emails are misleading.
Your example is irrelevant. And I welcome a trial, I already mentioned before that this will end more likely as a reaffirmation of the science and the censure of a few scientists but not much done to them in the end.
Uh huh. :rolleyes: And Daniel Ellsburg was a traitor to his country.
No, I was pointing out the appeals to emotion. The use of technical terms like, “seeders of discord”. The people who attack that which you hold dear are evildoers, the ones who triumph in the ways you want them to are heroes. The evidence, will show what it shows in court. There will be a trial. What are you worried about?
Yeah, probably a good thing. Root out the corruption of a culture of short-cuts. It’s unscientific. Lets do this thing!
I would think that when they reach for death threats one should be able to despise them, but that is just me.
Before it was just misleading information and graphs, now it is theft, and malice.
“Climate gate is going to be a joy to take apart.”
-Peter Sinclair.
- Who is they?
- Are you sure that ‘they’ belong to one over-arching and cohesive group?
- Who is them?
- What criteria are you using to despise ‘them’?
Heh. So it’s ok if people lie to the whole world, but not if people steal the info to expose them?
Enjoy the show. There’s plenty of malice to go around.
[quote=“mswas, post:49, topic:519899”]
Uh huh. :rolleyes: And Daniel Ellsburg was a traitor to his country.
I have not said what I think of him.
Nothing, except the fact that the perpetrators will be remain in the shadows. The scientists will have to defend what was already defended in the past, a waste of time… for them, but I welcome the explanations that I have seen elsewhere, they do demolish the silly points raised by the climategate conspiracy theorists.
Cite for the demonstrated corruption and the short-cuts?
(If you are not aware of the implications of that last request, you are not paying any attention to the science and only paying attention to the hooey proponents)
No, you avoided the question rather deftly.
Right, you are just assuming that what went on was ok. That the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are just absolutely wrong. Is it wrong of me to notice that how one feels about this tends to fall out on precise partisan lines?
Isn’t that the point of this whole exercise? To determine that?
Well, if you’ll notice, I started this thread specifically to get more information on the issue. So accusing me of such is not even wrong. I’m agnostic on the issue, I am just trying to cut through the partisan bullshit. Right now in this thread, you are the one cajoling the hardest.
The lies shown in the video, they (And many others) are the deniers’ bread and butter.
Cite for the lies told to the whole world? Scientists are not amused by reckless accusations.
In other words, you are proud not to check if deniers are telling you lies.
I refer you to the Original Post.
Do you not see how you are arguing based on cajoling? Look if you don’t automagically agree with me, then you are a dupe for the lying cawnspeeracey!!!
I’m getting the exact same response from MMGW Deniers on another board, so don’t feel bad, you’re in good company. You’re using the exact same lingual manipulators to elicit an emotional response from me.
Notice that I haven’t stated who I agree with. 
What I see is you making an spectacle of putting a round peg in a square hole. What partisan lines? What I see here is people denying science, not party identity.
Back on post 12 and 13 some of the strongest “evidence” shown by the supporters of Climategate was explained, but you daftly ignored it.
Because you choose to continue to ignore the citations.
mswas, I’d just like to say that the responses you elicited here are intriguing. Very interesting thread.
Thanks, I agree. The whole thing is a morass. I need to learn more physics so that I can understand the debate.
Well, not to cajole, but in reality I choose the videos by that guy because he tells you where to confirm what he is showing.
If you look carefully you will notice that I’m not saying that you should be converted or else, I’m is just pointing out that you are inferring that you will not even see the evidence (And you failed to comment on the early posts too).
Just by saying that you will check it would be enough, for some… A long time ago I decided that is better to leave citations and examples for others to learn, that an opponent chooses not to see or check the evidence is not very important. What is important is that others learn.
GIGObuster I haven’t read everything or watched every video on the subject. But the impression that I am getting is that it’s possible there was some malfeasance, but also that it doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means.
I’ll check out that video right now.