Milton Banana wrote:
Now fence sitters I don’t ordinarily do this but I’m going to have a look at another members post here because I think it instructive as to the kind of cultist mentality and how they view their elite. Wayne bless your little heart here goes.
As opposed to the front groups for the opposition offering $10,000.00 for any credible scientist to publish a paper sympathetic to them in any reputable journal? Or trying to tie up researchers time by trying to file multiple requests for information on their research, data, private emails, and anything else they can think to ask? One person's opinion, as opposed to the actions of an organized group or several organized groups, is supposed to paint onse side as being somehow "bad"?
The cultist elite or their religious pastors are their scientists they agree with. Now the law of the land includes The Freedom of Information Act. The cultists don’t like this law and feel their scientists should not be subject to this law.
Actually, there is a lot of research which is not covered under FOIA. Litigation is supposedly a "right" yet we have the problem of frivolous litigation which has to be limited.
As Wayne complains this law ties up the scientist and wastes their time. The quoted post argues their elite should not be subject to the laws that empower the little guy.
The "little guy" has no idea abut the data or how to use it, thus the main attraction for the use must be to try to impact the abiltiy to continue the research by tying up resources.
You fence sitters. This post argues their elite should be above the law because what they are doing is so far above your puny understanding.
That would be a misrepresentation of the truth, which is another aspect of trying to get data. It can then be misrepresetented. There is no issue with the FOIA, but there is an issue with its abuse. This from someone you claerly states they are not a scientist and therefore do not really understand what is beign discussed well enough to discuss it on their own. How does that make such a person then able to review the raw data being requested? It is above the understanding of most of us without significant additional education.
They should not be bothered with questions from the masses about what they do, and how they spend your tax dollars. Your money. You questioning their work is not to be tolerated. Sound like freedom to you? Does it sound like these people are being honest?
No, and you are clearly not being honest in this presentation of your strawman.
Most of the scientific community relishes the opportunity to talk with the masses.
Really? You have some evidence tyo support this claim?
They realize that is where they get their money from, and how they make their living.
No, they get the money from grants which are awarded by scientific committees.
They understand the masses have to be on board if any policy changes are to be made as a result of their research.
Yes, and those who have already closed their minds to the science are not going to be a beneficial use of resources. Those seeking the raw data are generally in this group unless they are actual researchers and can get some of the available data provided.
Most of the scientific community does not conspire with one another to achieve a predetermined outcome.
True, but neither do the climatologists, but that is part of you misrepresentation of the truth.
Most of the scientific community complies with FOIA requests.
Only for the data covered, which is not as much as you seem to think.
Most of the scientific community does not privately threaten to destroy emails. Most of the scientific community shares their work, materials, and methodology with the scientific and civilian community without hesitation.
Again, you have evidence of this claim? Especially the community who is actively trying to derail any such research.
Dr. Michael Mann does not. He is still involved in a court case suing others while refusing to share his work. You should be very suspicious of this man. You should question all of this man’s research, and fight like hell to have it removed from any policy decision. You should question all of this research because it all can one day effect your life in a very big way. That's all I'm asking of you fence sitters. Question.
And especially question the person who tells you not to trust the experts when that person is clueless about the issues the experts are discussing.