Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Seems like there's an attempt to avoid any critical review process here.
|
Or that they simply think McIntyre is a dick and don't want to convenience him in any way at all. His past behaviour has not been unlike that of Jim Ballsillie.
McIntyre has had the hockey stick data, it's been reviewed and reported on by NRC on behalf of congress not to mention another independent review.
Your own posts states that they consider giving him the (unknown) data but he can decode it himself.
"This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
If their research is being funded in any part by government, their results and findings are part of the public domain. Trying to stop someone from getting their hands on the data simply because they're a pest is not okay.
|
Really? It's not the intellectual property of the author(s), the institute and UK government data is part of the public domain of a Canadian. If you feel so strongly about that send me your e-mail so I might claim all research data from your lab. Don't even bother consulting with your supervisor. I mean ALL profs in Canada are paid by public institutions funded by the government. In fact give me a group e-mail for your department so I can have access to everyone's data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
Blackballing someone from any organization because they don't share your views is detestable, IMO.
|
Detestable because they don't share your views? Read your own quote. What are your thoughts on someone being blackballed if they're proven "bad behaviour"?
As for the potential funding issue. So what? What's the surprise and you feel that since 1990 ~$1m/year is a lot? Of course we should consider who is funding who but what's the big surprise here?
Why doesn't McIntyre get big oil to fund him so he can collect his own data? Or ... is he more vocal as a critical mouthpiece?
All I'm seeing here is negative science with minimal effort whatsoever from the negative crowd to produce their own results as they're too preoccupied trying to discredit everything else. And in other cases blatant fabrication of data for media use to "convince" poor individuals like TheU.
And the majority of your post is speculation or to quote Michael Mann.
sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious"