I don't understand what you're asking.

Do you remember Climategate?

__________________
"The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs."
-- F.A. Hayek

"Climategate" ended up being much ado about really, very little. Sort of a Rightwing Wetdream with premature ejaculation.

PolitiFact | Inhofe claims that e-mails 'debunk' science behind climate change

And, more to the point - no evidence that the research of skeptics if kept out of professional arenas for any reason other than merit.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Politifact isn't an unbiased source. I'm sure you can do better than that.


From the emails:

This is no 'wet dream' this is politics trumping science. I'm sure you can see that.

__________________
"The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs."
-- F.A. Hayek

And more, concerning the emails and outcome of the investigation into it:

FactCheck.org : Some “Climategate” Conclusions


I notice you don't list the source for your article but it appears to be Concerted effort to silence dissenters revealed in Climategate messages - National Climate Change | Examiner.com based on a search.

According to Wikipedia: To quote you....I'm sure you can do better than that

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Would you like to discuss the content of the post or the author?

I picked on PF, because they have a slight to severe bend to the left. I know nothing about that author from examiner.com. Is there something you know that would discredit what was said?

If you'd like I could go back and pick out the full content of the emails, but I am ready to assume that the quotes are correct. Can we start there?

__________________
"The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs."
-- F.A. Hayek

The 'investigation' was done by a parliamentary (read government) hearing. That's the first ding.

Complete BS. I am required to show ALL of my data in my papers as an addendum. I wonder why climate science feels that they don't? I understand that in the lowly field of Chemistry we have such arcane rules. Transparency in science? Guess we should just forget about being scientific and just take someone's word for it...

__________________
"The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs."
-- F.A. Hayek

The quotes are taken out of any meaningful sort of context - nowhere are the entire emails or what was being replied to.

How can you discuss them that way?

As to bias - that is a matter of opinion. Politifact has a pretty good reputation (except by those on the more extreme edges of either side who's views disagree with their analysis). Examiner.com is made up of contributors with no way of knowing anything about them, their qualifications, credibility etc. - in fact, I'm only guessing that is where you pulled it from since you didn't link to it. Wikipedia also states: Examiner.com has been criticized for its lack of verification and fact-checking of stories published on the site,[21] including accusations of plagiarism.[4][22]

You brought up the issue of source bias, but used a source that is itself suspect.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

/shrug

I didn't think that he made any assumptions or opinion. It was a statement of record.

Can you see the difference?

__________________
"The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs."
-- F.A. Hayek

I can see an article from a dubious source with incomplete quotes from a variety of emails none of which are available in entirety and sequence.

And you claim it is a "statement of record"??????

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Simply because it's a government hearing isn't a "ding" since it's just as likely to biased in favor of skeptics given the industries and associated money involved.


I am not a chemist, but I do work for an earth science department, and I've seen many published papers. None contain "raw data" or computer code though I suspect they are available on request. Likewise, my mother worked for years in research in heart disease and nutrition and published papers. Raw epidemiological data would have taken volumes in some cases.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.