Now, that would be funny if it wasn't so dumb. If his work was accurate, there would be nothing found wrong with it, so why (for that reason) would he mind someone making corrections in his 25 years of work? Wouldn't he want to know if he had made a mistake and would forever produce flawed reports based on incorrect assumptions? Shouldn't scientists be concerned with accuracy and TRUTH?

That right there is enough reason to cast doubt on anything that comes from that fellow. If he and his work won't stand scrutiny, why would he or his work be of value to me?

Frank

I totally agree with everything you say Frank.

It's not productive to say that science is a dictatorship on the basis of a few people like Phil Jones, who seems to be acting like a spoiled 5 year old. The data should have been published regularly for ALL to see <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" /> Having said that, if the computer model he/they used is flawed, who wants to see the data anyway?

They want to see it because it was his data that was used by the UN's IPCC's revelations & 'recommendations'. It is the IPCC that started and perpetuates the scam under the auspices of the global governing body of the UN.

Oh my, what a cock-up <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> I stand by my earlier comments <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

??



I stand by mine. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

IPCC task force 'working groups'. There's really nothing debatable about it. Ever hear of 'wetlands' legislation? Same deal (i.e. pull a crisis out their <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/butwiggle.gif" alt="" /> and then benevolently provide us with legal binding 'solutions'). UN. 1971 Ramsar Convention.

Allow me to clarify....All scientists are people. There are honest people, people that make mistakes and people thyat are also subject to corruption.

Jumble up those variables and both points happen.

I could not have said it better myself. It's just a fact of life.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that if scientific data is published and cited frequently that it must then be held as the truth? Science has been wrong before (stop press). Because of the progressive nature of science, this is not a problem.

If the UN IPCC relied so heavily on data that was potentially suspect (and we don't know that it is, and we also don't know if the data HAS been lost) then more fool them. No one forced them to do so.

This expectation of infallibility from the scientific community as a whole is unrealistic.

I agree.

Don't take this as an insult, because it's not intended as such - but - the convenience of that "infallibility" TRUTH should call into question the potential for inaccuracy of other unproven scientific opinions - like the origin of the universe and matter itself, should it not? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I know you agree, because you already said you agreed with everything I say. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Frank

LOLZ. He better hurry up with this con. Ken Lay is bored and lonely down in S.A.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> I did say that, didn't I <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ignore.gif" alt="" /> (I laughed pretty hard about that <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />)



No offense.

Yes, and it does. I'll say no more right now since I sense this is either a rhetorical or a loaded question <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />