Posted on 08/31/2018 5:55:46 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
As such the public has a right to know how climate researching is carried out and the integrity of the research.
If 'the science is settled' why don't they want the public to see how the science is done?
And if the science is true and can be tested then why wouldn’t they want everyone to have that information? Why the need for secrecy?
It’s contrary to the best interests of The State donchaknow?
Bump
If it’s pure science then the emails shouldn’t matter.
Remember submitting your experiment conclusions in high school chemistry, but weren’t required to show your calculations or adherence to the scientific process?
Me neither.
The old rule still applies...the one that says “follow the money”.
WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO HIDE THEM?
There is no reason science is hidden unless you have something to hide.
ALL Scientific studies that are worth a darn are subject to ‘peer-review’.
These people have already admitted to the single most cardinal sin in science.
There are many levels of bad science.
The first is when you get data, analyze it, and come to the wrong conclusions. That’s FINE and to be expected, and why peer review is so important. Someone else may see something you missed.
The next is getting data and DELIBERATELY ignoring it to show only the results you want. This happens when they have a result they want in their head, and are blinded or choose to see something else. This is also discoverable in peer-review when someone else looks at the data.
But the absolute WORST thing you can do is get data, delete anything that does not agree with what you want. You cannot go back and look at the data and fix anything in peer-review. Money was wasted and the entire study needs to be done again.
This is what these alleged ‘scientists’ have already admitted to.
This should be cause for immediate termination and never being hired to do any science again. This is why they don’t want their emails to be seen. The contents were already leaked, and we know what they say. They admit to deleting stuff that did not ‘prove’ climate change.
I am not retired. I don’t follow this story well. I have like 10 minutes to catch the real news in the morning, like Freep, liberty daily, etc.
I can’t determine if this story is good or bad from the title or first paragraph. I think a lot of folks think everyone is intimately familiar with their hot button stories..a couple of descriptors would have been good...like was the judge a liberal Obama appointee?
The courts are going to allow us to violate the sacred scrolls?
Remember that the scientific method is based entirely on the notion of a free exchange of information (publication, etc.) Anthropogenic climate change alarmists are a different breed: the first we’ve seen to suppress, silence, and shun. Look at Pat Michaels, VA State Climatologist, and so many others - fired for opinions, based on scientific evidence. Somewhere, Galileo is laughing... Or crying.
Ping.
That “glitch” would also have to be present in the backups.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Oh, absolutely.
Mark Steyn tried to force the release of Michael Mann’s emails and work while at UVA and UPenn and was denied.
I wonder if that ruling could be revisited in view of this finding.
Maybe the All Mighty and Knowledgeable Q has the answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.