Jubbergun wrote:
I guess so, since it's apparent that the state of science is such that you can lie, fudge your figures, deny skeptical parties any sort of review of your work, and attempt to besmirch the reputation parties presenting opposing views and still be judged blameless of any wrongdoing.
Just because your "sources" don't stand up under even the rudimentary scrutiny of a half-educated forklift artiste doesn't mean they're being "attacked," it just means they fucking suck, and you need better sources.
No one is "laughing off" your sources. I think I was fairly concise about what was wrong with the one I reviewed. If anyone here is laughing anything off, it's you, since you couldn't even be bothered to read my objections. For pity's fucking sake, I presented how the summary on that report was utter bullshit, and your response is to suggest I need to read some more summaries? If that's your answer, you don't need to concern yourself with how any of the rest of us are dealing with reality because you're sure as hell not in touch with it.
The reality here is that there is still debate about this subject in the scientific community, and that debate would probably be more pronounced if not for individuals like Professor Jones who attempt to professionally damage people who do so much as allow dissenting views to be presented.
Your Pal,
Jubber
I wasn't referring to the reports on the CRU emails. I was referring to sources on the actual science, such as the IPCC report. You don't seem to have looked into those at all. There is indeed some debate in the scientific community (although I doubt the subjects being debated are what you imagine), but to discuss it rationally you have to be willing to actually look at the science, not continually cast aspersions on the sources while avoiding the evidence itself.
