OT - Propaganda Games

On Dec 22, 2015, PAS wrote
(in article ):

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Davoud:
Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science,
it's
subject to change.

Eric Stevens:
Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

Which is a rephrasing of what I said. "I'll believe it no matter what"
would be dogmatic. "...until better data is available" is not dogmatic
belief.

Eric Stevens:
Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be improved if
the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data about
their
citizens?

Davoud:
Which ruling powers and what kind of data?

You didn't read the article at the end of the link?

Apparently not very carefully. The U.S. Constitution requires that the
government collect a considerable amount of information about each
resident every 10 years--a census. This is in accordance with the
mandate that the Federal Government provide for the General Welfare of
the people.

What degree of data collection is acceptable? The requirement to
collect the data does not indicate to what degree it should be. Have
you ever received the census long form to complete? One can argue that
this degree of data collection is not what was intended nor is the claim
that a citizen must provide that data under penalty of law.

So, let’s get back to basic census data collection and ask one question:

“How many individuals reside at this location/residence today?�
That should provide some simple raw data devoid of information regarding
gender, age, ethnicity, etc.
At least prisons will be easy, just provide the usual head count.

Naturally the simple answer is going to be subject to error created by a
population in constant movement, be it movement and travel for work,
employment, or relocation.
--

Regards,
Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Dec 22, 2015, PAS wrote
(in article ):

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Davoud:
Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not
dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real
science,
it's
subject to change.

Eric Stevens:
Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting
it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

Which is a rephrasing of what I said. "I'll believe it no matter
what"
would be dogmatic. "...until better data is available" is not
dogmatic
belief.

Eric Stevens:
Do you approve of it? Do you think the world would be
improved if
the
ruling powers concerned had better access to better data
about
their
citizens?

Davoud:
Which ruling powers and what kind of data?

You didn't read the article at the end of the link?

Apparently not very carefully. The U.S. Constitution requires that
the
government collect a considerable amount of information about each
resident every 10 years--a census. This is in accordance with the
mandate that the Federal Government provide for the General Welfare
of
the people.

What degree of data collection is acceptable? The requirement to
collect the data does not indicate to what degree it should be. Have
you ever received the census long form to complete? One can argue
that
this degree of data collection is not what was intended nor is the
claim
that a citizen must provide that data under penalty of law.

So, let’s get back to basic census data collection and ask one
question:

“How many individuals reside at this location/residence today?�
That should provide some simple raw data devoid of information
regarding
gender, age, ethnicity, etc.
At least prisons will be easy, just provide the usual head count.

Naturally the simple answer is going to be subject to error created by
a
population in constant movement, be it movement and travel for work,
employment, or relocation.

Nothing wrong with that logic, IMO. I have no issue with providing
basic census information. The census long form is another issue
entirely. I received that form three times. I refused to fill it out
the last time I received it, I shouldn't have done so for the earlier
ones. After not filling out the last one I received, I was harassed
(perhaps that's too strong a word to use) by census takers multiple
times coming to my home and demanding that I fill it out under penalty
of law.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:50:36 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:15:15 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 21, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that
people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma
are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory,
subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if
new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized
more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories
continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

I would have believed that you more than many others here, would be aware
that there is more to NOAA’s data collection than relying “principally
on
ground stations, the accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the
encroachment of buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning duct and you
wouldn’t believe what else [sic].”

A glance at the number and distribution of NOAAs offshore buoys, snd th
frequency of data collected should put that thought to rest.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov

You claim that unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA’s data is
practicing dogma, and that questioning it and possibly rejecting it is he
mark of someone practicing science. However, you fail to present other
data,
collected in a scientific manner, to support your doubt, which seems to be
far from someone practicing science, just plain vanilla, unscientific
doubt.

See http://tinyurl.com/zzyzdhg for a start.

...and they are using NOAA data from a subset of 410 stations they have
deemed as “unperturbed”.
In the key findings the had this to say:
"1. Comprehensive and detailed evaluation of station metadata, on-site
station photography, satellite and aerial imaging, street level Google Earth
imagery, and curator interviews have yielded a well-distributed 410 station
subset of the 1218 station USHCN network that is unperturbed by Time of
Observation changes, station moves, or rating changes, and a complete or
mostly complete 30-year dataset. It must be emphasized that the perturbed
stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than
those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.”

That seems to indicate the dropped the“perturbed” station data from the
sample.

Go back to the note for figure 4:

"Comparisons of 30 year trend for compliant Class 1,2 USHCN stations
to non-compliant, Class 3,4,5 USHCN stations to NOAA final adjusted
V2.5 USHCN data in the Continental United States"

The authors were looking for two groups: 'compliant' vs the rest. It
was the authors who identified the well-distributed 410 station subset
for the purpose of their study.

It was NOAA who dropped perturbed stations from the USCHN set (no one
else could). It was NOAA who determined that the dropped perturbed
stations should "show significantly lower trends than those [perturbed
stations] retained in the sample".

You should also note:

"5. We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well
sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly
sited stations."

For a comentary on the situation you should read
http://tinyurl.com/oe8wks7

My conclusions are tentative for the time being but it is with
interest that I'm waiting to see what develops.

You should be aware that NOAA has refused to give Congress information
about the discussions behind the compilation of the present data but
appears to have changed their mind since being sued by Judicial Watch.
See http://tinyurl.com/o9vk22d

Then try
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordp...1/07/r-367.pdf

Much of those conclusions don’t seem to have taken into account what was
reported above, and discounts the omitted “perturbed” station data.

That data is limited to continental North American terrestrial data. The same
argument cannot be used for oceanic or atmospheric data obtained from
offshore buoys and weather balloons.

Oh, what they have done there is questionable too. See
http://tinyurl.com/o9vk22d

"Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency
failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
submitted on October 30, 2015 – NOAA is a component of the
Department of Commerce. The timeframe for the requested records is
October 30, 2014, through October 30, 2015, and requests all
documents and records of communications between NOAA officials,
employees, and contractors regarding:

*-The methodology and utilization of night marine air temperatures
to adjust ship and buoy temperature data;
*-The use of other global temperature datasets for both NOAA’s
in-house dataset improvements and monthly press releases
conveying information to the public about global temperatures;
*-The utilization and consideration of satellite bulk atmospheric
temperature readings for use in global temperature datasets;
and
*- A subpoena issued for the aforementioned information by
Congressman Lamar Smith on October 13, 2015."


Most people who rely on NOAA's public conclusions have never examined
their basis but, as I said, accept them as a matter of dogma.

“dogma” is in the context of this thread, your term to undermine the NOAA
data and conclusions. Unfortunately, we are faced with undeniable climate
change and the industrial nations bear a heavy share of responsibility for
that change.

I don't use "dogma" to undermine the NOAA data and conclusions. I use
it describe the unquestioning way in which most people accept NOAA's
published conclusions. NOAA says it: it must be correct. When it comes
to climate change, this applies to a lot more than NOAA. The relevance
to the topic is that the people who readily accept the climate change
dogma can come under enormous social and peer pressure on the subject.

Other
people who examine and criticise the basis for NOAA's conclusions are
labeled with the term 'sceptic' (used pejoratively) and put to one
side, even though such people should have a role in science. I know
that from experience that the social pressures on 'sceptics' can be
considerable and I would hate to think of what could happen if
something like the propaganda games were implemented.

Agreed. However, there is a big difference between scientific skepticism and
loss of faith and doubt in supporting totalitarian and theocratic regimes.
One need think only of the Inquisition, "The Terror" in revolutionary France,
Stalin’s paranoid purges, Nazi Germany, Mao’s Red Army, Pol Pot and the
Khmer Rouge, and the current Middle East issues.

That's unsubtle and crude compared with what is happening in China.
Pick your favourite topic and just imagine the 'propaganda games'
technique being applied in the USA.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

In news.com,
says...

On Dec 21, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:25:09 -0500, wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Let's not argue about the details. Just look at the way that
people
(including scientists) who disagree with any part of the dogma
are
treated.

Davoud:
Global climate change is not a dogma; it's a scientific theory,
subject
to constant review and subject to modification or even rejection if
new
evidence shows it to be partially or completely wrong. That's not
likely; the only theories in science that have been scrutinized
more
than global climate change are Darwinian evolution and General
Relativity. Like the theory of climate change, those theories
continue
to pass muster.

Eric Stevens:
Do you trust NOAA's latest data re global temperature rise?

Yes, until better data is available. The "latest data" is not dogma;
it's the best available at the moment. Because it's real science, it's
subject to change.

It's dubious, at best. It relies principally on ground stations the
accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the encroachment of
buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning ducts and you wouldn't
believe what else. Unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA's
data is practicing dogma. Questioning it and possibly rejecting it is
not the mark of an unbeliever but of someone practising science.

I would have believed that you more than many others here, would be aware
that there is more to NOAA?s data collection than relying ?principally on
ground stations, the accuracy of most of which have been compromised by the
encroachment of buildings, concrete slapbs, air conditioning duct and you
wouldn?t believe what else [sic].?

A glance at the number and distribution of NOAAs offshore buoys, snd th
frequency of data collected should put that thought to rest.
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov

Which give us about 30 years of data subsequent to a change in
measurement technique that has some known biases and may have some
unknown ones as well.

...and that makes the data collected bad?

You claim that unquestioning belief in the reliability of NOAA?s data is
practicing dogma, and that questioning it and possibly rejecting it is he
mark of someone practicing science. However, you fail to present other
data,
collected in a scientific manner, to support your doubt, which seems to be
far from someone practicing science, just plain vanilla, unscientific
doubt.

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data available at
now. It is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems there have
been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to take the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data available. It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?
The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?
The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?
The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

That Lamar Smith?!!

You should check on who you have in your corner.
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...nsf-and-house-
science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ing_lamar_smit
h_s_conspiracy_ideations.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._harassment_of
_scientists_continues.html

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Dec 22, 2015, Savageduck wrote
(in news.com):

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount
and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data available.
It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?
The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?
The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?
The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

That Lamar Smith?!!

You should check on who you have in your corner.
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...nsf-and-house-
science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad

http://tinyurl.com/knzljmv


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ing_lamar_smit

h_s_conspiracy_ideations.html

http://tinyurl.com/hxv3snv


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._harassment_of

_scientists_continues.html

http://tinyurl.com/po7cy5f



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

In news.com,
says...

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount
and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data
available.
It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn?t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems
there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to
take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?

Having horns, a tail, and carrying a pitchfork does not automatically
make him wrong.

....but being a crooked weasel sure helps.

The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?

I didn't know one could be paid to be a skeptic. Where do I sign up?

Start by becoming a GOP Congressman, preferably in a Texas district.


The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists
at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?

So how many "climate scientists" has he successfully gotten blacklisted?

Different kind of witch hunt, but if he could get them black listed he
wouldn’t hesitate.

The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It’s a bad thing when members of Congress are in the pocket of the oil &
gas industry lobbyists.

That Lamar Smith?!!

You should check on who you have in your corner.
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/20...nsf-and-house-
science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...rming_lamar_sm
it
h_s_conspiracy_ideations.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...th_harassment_
of
_scientists_continues.html



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:21:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data available. It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?
The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?
The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?
The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

I wouldn't have a clue who Lamar Smith may be. Nor do I know anything
about his politics. The point is he asked perfectly valid questions
and NOAA refused to answer until they were sued by Judicial Watch.

I didn't want to drag you into an argument but you have provided me
with an excellent example. You seem to think that the validity of a
question about the origin of data in a scientific matter depends on
the politics of the asker. This is in keeping with the spirit of
Propaganda Games.

That Lamar Smith?!!

You should check on who you have in your corner.
http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/10/battle-between-nsf-and-house-science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad
I can't really comment on this one.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/30/global_warming_lamar_smith_s_conspiracy_ideations. html
That article is irrational, biased and wrong.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/23/lamar_smith_harassment_of_scientists_continues.htm l
You should think hard before you accept this article as unbiased.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:21:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount
and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data
available.
It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems
there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to
take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?
The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?
The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists
at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?
The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

I wouldn't have a clue who Lamar Smith may be. Nor do I know anything
about his politics.

You should if you are going to use his politics to support your assertion.

The point is he asked perfectly valid questions
and NOAA refused to answer until they were sued by Judicial Watch.

So would you if you were about to figuratively have your throat cut by a paid
assassin.

I didn't want to drag you into an argument but you have provided me
with an excellent example.

You opened that keg of worms when you introduced your oil industry whore
Congressman.

You seem to think that the validity of a
question about the origin of data in a scientific matter depends on
the politics of the asker.

Not always, but in this case I should probably plea the Fifth, but I suspect
my bias is all too obvious.

This is in keeping with the spirit of Propaganda Games.

Then I guess it is a good thing that I am not out friend, job, or house
hunting. I am beginning to feel a bit like that other Smith, Winston Smith.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:20:00 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:21:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 06:27:07 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Dec 22, 2015, J. Clarke wrote
(in ):

Le Snip

One of the key elements of the scientific process is independent
replication of results. Where is the independent replication of NOAA
results? Who else has the resources to conduct data collection on a
similar scale?

So, because there is no other large source of data, we should discount
and
doubt what we have accumulated?

Unfortunately we have to work with, and analyze the best data
available.
It
is that, or to live in denial because it doesn’t suit us to
consider human impact on the environment.

For now this is the only canary we have in this mine, and it seems
there
have been no alternative scientific methods proposed, other than to
take
the
approach of doubt.

The question is, has the only data we have got been tampered with?
That was Congessman Lamar Smith's question and the one which NOAA at
first declined to answer in any way. But that's getting off the topic
and I have no desire to take this specific example further.

You are siding with Lamar Smith in this!!?
The Lamar Smith who has been paid more than $600,000 by the fossil fuel
industry?
The Lamar Smith who is a paid skeptic?
The Lamar Smith who is conducting a witch hunt against climate scientists
at
a greater intensity than anything McCarthy had going?
The Lamar Smith who is fighting for the Keystone Pipeline?

I wouldn't have a clue who Lamar Smith may be. Nor do I know anything
about his politics.

You should if you are going to use his politics to support your assertion.

Don't be daft. As I have already said, a person's politics has nothing
to do with the validity of their questions about scientific matters.
I'm surprised you should think otherwise.

The point is he asked perfectly valid questions
and NOAA refused to answer until they were sued by Judicial Watch.

So would you if you were about to figuratively have your throat cut by a paid
assassin.

Their throat would be safe if the answers were straightforward. My
concern is whether or not their internal files would reveal another
rerun of Climate-gate. You have heard of Climate-gate?

I didn't want to drag you into an argument but you have provided me
with an excellent example.

You opened that keg of worms when you introduced your oil industry whore
Congressman.

Is this the way you have always discussed science?

You seem to think that the validity of a
question about the origin of data in a scientific matter depends on
the politics of the asker.

Not always, but in this case I should probably plea the Fifth, but I suspect
my bias is all too obvious.

Hell yes, and I'm afraid it has little to do with an unbiased attitude
to climate science. I'm both sorry and surprised to say that.

This is in keeping with the spirit of Propaganda Games.

Then I guess it is a good thing that I am not out friend, job, or house
hunting. I am beginning to feel a bit like that other Smith, Winston Smith.

You misunderstand me. It's not people like you I fear for. It's people
like you I fear.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens