Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Dec. 9th, 2009 04:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheThe University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit had its email hacked, and the vultures have been going over the spoils since then, and pretending they understand the contents.
One of the claims is that those awful, nasty, vicious scientists were nastily and viciously saying rude things about ‘sceptics’, like the ‘sceptics’ who were writing awful papers with broken science, and screaming blue murder when this was pointed out. (“Peer review is supposed to be about me proving you wrong! If it's the other way around, it must be bias and conspiracy, because there are no other explanations!”)
Yes, those horrible horrible climate scientists were rude in kind to people who had been spending years calling them frauds and liars and worse.
It's a good thing none of you Instant Armchair Experts would go and, oh I don't know, make death threats to people in those emails or anything. Because then your claims to have the high moral ground might be revealed as chimerical at best.
For the record, I haven't found mention of a single death threat made to ‘Lord’ Monckton, or de Freitas, or to McKittrick or McIntyre, or to Ian Plimer (by AGW proponents, anyway. He apparently got more than a few from Creationist nutcases.)
But, no. It's AGW proponents[0] who are the ‘religious’ ones. It's AGW proponents who are ‘dangerous’.
[0] That's such a clumsy phrase. The scientists are arguing ‘for’ AGW in the sense that it exists, not that they are ‘for’ it. It's an existential argument, not one of preference. And I don't think there's a single scientist who would not prefer that the science was saying something different. But no matter how hard they try, the data is worse than they thought. And now the politicians are all in Copenhagen, and they're going to do what politicians always do, which is shit in the pot and fuck everything up in the effort to get more for themselves, and somehow the science, and the scientists, will get the blame.
One of the claims is that those awful, nasty, vicious scientists were nastily and viciously saying rude things about ‘sceptics’, like the ‘sceptics’ who were writing awful papers with broken science, and screaming blue murder when this was pointed out. (“Peer review is supposed to be about me proving you wrong! If it's the other way around, it must be bias and conspiracy, because there are no other explanations!”)
Yes, those horrible horrible climate scientists were rude in kind to people who had been spending years calling them frauds and liars and worse.
It's a good thing none of you Instant Armchair Experts would go and, oh I don't know, make death threats to people in those emails or anything. Because then your claims to have the high moral ground might be revealed as chimerical at best.
For the record, I haven't found mention of a single death threat made to ‘Lord’ Monckton, or de Freitas, or to McKittrick or McIntyre, or to Ian Plimer (by AGW proponents, anyway. He apparently got more than a few from Creationist nutcases.)
But, no. It's AGW proponents[0] who are the ‘religious’ ones. It's AGW proponents who are ‘dangerous’.
[0] That's such a clumsy phrase. The scientists are arguing ‘for’ AGW in the sense that it exists, not that they are ‘for’ it. It's an existential argument, not one of preference. And I don't think there's a single scientist who would not prefer that the science was saying something different. But no matter how hard they try, the data is worse than they thought. And now the politicians are all in Copenhagen, and they're going to do what politicians always do, which is shit in the pot and fuck everything up in the effort to get more for themselves, and somehow the science, and the scientists, will get the blame.
