and none of them were peer reviewed scientific data either. You guys are scaring me. You're doing exactly what your accusing those at CRU did. You're arguing in support of your belief with out adequate data to support it and then accusing me of "blindly believing" something cause I've asked you to provide data to support your argument?
Again.
I agree Socr, that's what I've been driving at. Throw the data out there and let us draw our own conclusions. This is the problem about what happens when scientific issues like this become politicized. The truth becomes a casualty to politics. The point I've been making that got under their skin is that the anti-side is just as bad as the pro-side of this issue. Their both expecting us to take their point of view in faith with out providing us the data to make an informed decision.
Again, the "point" you have been supposedly trying to make is the point I have made from the beginning, and it was lost in your inability to stop yourself from defending the bad practice of other "scientists"...
and once again f o r t h e v e r y e x t r e m e l y s l o w. My point is the only one making a strawman here is you. I never claimed that you've taken a position of any sort.
Yes you have. For. The. Uber. Slow. "Scientist".
I have not defended and "bad practices of scientist" site one instance where I've done this? I've mearly stated that just because one side has a crediblity gap doesn't make the other side right. That both sides are obligated to provide sound scientific evidence to support their views. You're the one, god knows why, that is being argumentative about my point. Why are you even arguing this point?
And I have never claimed the "other side" is right. That is your own preposterous straw man.
That they should, there shouldn't even be a point of debate and the fact that they won't release their data for public scrutiny not only affects their credibility, it's down right unscientific but keep in mind Socr. They are not the only source of information and data on the topic of climate. However, all sides on any scientific issue are needed to provide their data, not just those supporting any one side.
Again, you're the one creating the strawman. Asking for peer reviewed data from any side on any scientific issue is a perfectly reasonable request. I've ascribed no postion to anyone. The part that's blowing my mind is that you're not getting that the discredited CRU data did not survive the peer review process as scientific peers rejected the data as being "fudged" so your point is not only irrelevent, it's a moot one.
This is why I tend to be in the same camp. IF there was good solid data that led to the conclusion that mankind was, in any substantial way, resposible for Global Warming, they would not fight so hard to keep the data to themselves. That data would decimate the claims of the "deniers", silence political critics and lead to dramatic changes. All you have to do is prove it.
Again. Yes it is. It is what I have done here and you have tried to say I had the wrong opinion on. Since my only point was to ask for actual peer-reviewed processes rather than just saying they were peer-reviewed and that there was "consensus" and yours was that I was somehow "wrong" then you seem to be taking the other side of that position. That you are now taking the same position as myself is good. It is what I expect from scientists, and should have been brought out long ago by them rather than having to defend the "consensus" with only faith.
Yup. Simply asking for the information so that we can see the actual processes of science at work.
I'm pretty much exactly here too. It is tough to get past the fact that releasing actual valid data would silence all the critics and that they still try to hide the data....
