In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Come on Jim be fair. They were fighting tooth and nail to not publish
figures because they don't match the new religious polemic.

That is certainly what some people *claim* as the *reason*. But as per
comments about reading evidence, putting things into context, etc, don't
simply assume that what you are told about *someone else's intent* is
correct. Particularly when you are only given the cherry picked info
out of context and don't understand either the science or the rest
of the situation you don't know about.


It doesn't have any magic trick or in-house tech speak, its just
dishonest.

Now you are moving on to making potentially actionable statements about the
*intent* of someone you've probably never met, based on *assertions* from
those who have adopted a "go for the man not the ball" method.

If your concern is with what is 'dishonest' you might be better to reflect
on the behaviour of those who obtained and published the material without
consent, out of context, and then provide their own 'intepretations' as
being the actual ideas they seek to attribute.


None of which means they are wrong as such, just that the
cognizant should not take their work as gospel.

Ditto for the claims and 'intepretations' of others who present things out
of context and without the actual evidence. And without you knowing the
science.

BTW Had you listened to the R4 programme I mentioned *before* making the
above assertions? I suspect not from what you wrote above.


Given what you've said in the past about your understanding of the science
of audio (which is trivial in comparison) you may need to take care
here when - as above - your present your personal opinions as 'fact'.

Particularly if you are defaming someone you don't know in the
process on the basis of not understanding the science or how the
people actually behaved *in context*. And making such statements about
someone who is not here to read and respond to your personal
attacks on him. Think carefully about using the word 'dishonest'
if you wish to behave in this manner.

And we really should not be discussing this here. If you want to
tell the person who's emails were published that he is dishonest
then I'd suggest you write directly to him and say so. I doubt
anyone here knows him, or has the full info to comment on your
hearsay-based assertions. Given your assertion he can then decide
how to respond to you.

FWIW I am not a climate scientist or an 'expert' of any kind on
that topic. Nor do I know the people involved in the emails in
question. But I do know how academic scientists behave, and have
done a few things like listened to the above programme. And
in the past looked at this topic from outside on a number of
occasions. On that basis your comments above seem to me to be
ones that are at best unwise, and at worse, ones you would come
to regret.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html