Monte wrote:
You have to look into what those consequences might be. There is a presumption that the data was bad, that it was ginned up, or that the data was somehow indicative of a conclusion that would bring down the supposed conspiracy of HIGCC. None of this is true.
Like the emails that got illegally hacked, then cherry picked for sound bites, this data likely doesn't say what it would be portrayed as saying. Scientists do not have the mechanisms in place to wage a political fight and a media battle over how their data is represented, or misrepresented. The people attempting to quell legislation aimed at curbing this threat, however, do.
So when they withold something from people hell bent on making them look bad, regardless of the factual nature of their accusations, it's an act of self defense that is not necessarily born of some nefarious intent.
In other words, people will lie about the work the scientists are doing. They have the money to make those lies stick, as was clear with the email theft. So scientists are legitimate worried that their work will be severely damaged by powerful interests that seek to cut off and hamper their efforts.
So much wrong with this. Basically you are just saying "I don't care if they have proof, I'm going to believe them. And if they do have info that can be proved wrong, I don't want anyone else to know about because I choose to believe." You, Monty, never ever get to insult, talk down too, question or anything else a religious person ever again.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
