Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
psikeyhackr wrote:Oh please!
The WTC is simple compared to the economy/climate business.
David B. Benson wrote:...the self-correcting nature of science means that the few crank papers are quickly just ignored in most fields.
... the data belongs to the latter and CRU is not entitled to release it, no matter what.
Second, UEA is required to follow British law; do not assume that it is the same as in the USA.
Third, researchers at CRU (and elsewhere) are simply hounded by banality evil people attempting to stop/spoil/delay their research via pointless FOI actions; under the circumstances tempers are likely to become quite, quite short.
Actual scientific misconduct is extraordinarily rare; the only cases I know about are in the medical/molecular biosciences --- NIH has taken steps to reduce such malpractice.
What is certainly more common is the all-too-human failing of overlooking something important. In the case of the progressive collapse of WTC 1 I, a least but I opine several others, overlooked what Achimspok has recently so vividly pointed out to us; for me this has explained a rather puzzling feature of the B&V computer simulations.
Oh please, my ***, you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you do not understand the application of potential energy in physics. You may yet. Until then, things like the next statement:
OneWhiteEye wrote:If you think you're doing science on this board, regardless of stance, the thing that should always arouse the most suspicion is your own motivation.
femr2 wrote:OWE, you are a
I must respond, as should we all (including you, though that may at first glance seem a bit futile), but not tonight. 5am after a Saturday night. Bad timing.
After 979 comments (last count) on the RealClimate thread, I'll say it was all done for the sake of harassment, nothing more.OneWhiteEye wrote:Are all of them only banal evil people with pointless FOIs, or is there a baby in that bathwater?
None, as it seems that the administration of UEA agrees with the CRU researchers.Do you think there was any misconduct implied in the emails?
Why runs leaving out tilt always produce better fits than runs with.What was puzzling?
David B. Benson wrote:After 979 comments (last count) on the RealClimate thread, I'll say it was all done for the sake of harassment, nothing more.OneWhiteEye wrote:Are all of them only banal evil people with pointless FOIs, or is there a baby in that bathwater?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests