we wanna see shit BURN!
By definition the private sector has to be more expensive at achieving a goal than the public one.
Then explain the cost difference between the Senate-mandated SLS design and the SpaceX-developed Falcon Heavy.
which means private business will be allowed to get very rich wasting public money doing things which could be done by employees paid directly by the state.
Which explains why the Shuttle was so cheap...oh, wait!
And yet claims were being made from it, demands that policy and law be shaped because of it, and you would have us believe that 15 years ago, it was all infantile studies not worthy of that? And yes, I said 15 years, you seem to be fixated on 25 years (probably because of when you were converted).
As studies get expanded, results get more precise. Some policies can be drawn from older studies and are available from an early date, but other policy recommendations require further studies. What's so difficult to understand about that?
It is completely relevant as it was being used to impose changes and this is exactly what the repeatability and availability requirements are for.
IPCC uses a wide range of studies to arrive at policy recommendations, not one study from a single institution such as the CRU, and beyond that, I've already mentioned that the CRU results weren't invalidated by any investigation. So what is it that you're arguing for here? Either including the CRU results (if they're valid) or excluding them (if they aren't) won't change anything.
It doesn't matter where I stand but I'm calling your actions religious as you seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad than any fundie I have seen when you throw evolution in their face. You are completely skirting issues and talking past them trying to imagine how that makes things perfect now or something. It's the functional equivalent of "the bible says".
I "seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad"? I'm not sure I understand that, but I'm simply arguing that if claims that make something look bad are later found to be invalid, there's no point in perpetuating them. Had those claims been vindicated, that obviously would have been a reason for taking steps against the CRU. You still haven't said what I'm "skirting". We've already concluded that the claims about CRU were found to be unfounded, what else is there to discuss?
No, it's arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves that people suspected him of committing the crimes.
You can suspect anything about anyone. That's no reason to take action before the truth is found out. Regarding "suspicions", see below.
I never said their claims were valid, I said they were created by the mistrust caused by the lack of transparency.
Except they weren't. Climate change deniers don't need any reason for mistrust. Even with full transparency, they'd still throw accusations at climate scientists that they're conning people to get grants. They're doing that all the time. They were doing that even before the CRU "affair". So that wouldn't prevent the problem in the first place
Are we to ignore those years when the information wasn't available and those opinions and positions were formed?
The information wasn't available 25 years ago for the simple reason that this was a different line of research that would happen in the future. I'm sure there will also be a lot of research going on 15 years from now but that doesn't mean we can't draw any conclusions now.
No one was trying to create or shape public law with Rosetta probe photos. No one was or is trying to take freedoms away with them either.
That is irrelevant since nobody forces you to shape public law with CRU's research either. You're perfectly free to completely ignore CRU even exists, and the relevant scientific landscape won't change.
Nobody cares about when you found religion. It's not important and others not finding it at the exact same time is not important either.
If you're calling accepted research performed by multiple independent parties over many decades as "religion", it's obvious 1) where you stand and 2) that any reasonable discussion with you is out of question. Is evolution "a religion"? Is general relativity "a religion"? What kind of science isn't "a religion" to you?
It appears we cannot because you cannot even stay on topic in the first place.
The topic you raised was people (those "skeptics" you talked of) unqualified to make judgments on that affair because they lack either the necessary knowledge, intellect, or both. (And if not, pray tell, what else was the topic?)
Hell, the fact that there had to be an investigation and declaration by multiple sources proves my point
That's like arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves the prosecutor's point. It's utter rubbish.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
