Comments on: Oppose Scientific Conspiracies. Support Open Acceess.

By: tdaxp

tdaxp — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:24:15 +0000

My grin came from Ben Nelson, ObamaCare’s 60th vote, making his first public self-criticism… [1]

[1] http://www.fremonttribune.com/articles/2010/01/07/news/local/doc4b44af1b90306516425283.txt

By: Purpleslog

Purpleslog — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:04:27 +0000

It’s really hard to tell the difference between ACGW talking points and sarcasm.

Thanks! I needed to be grinning this afternoon. The above did it for me.

By: tdaxp

tdaxp — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:24:25 +0000

It’s really hard to tell the difference between ACGW talking points and sarcasm.

By: Jeffrey James

Jeffrey James — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:14:31 +0000

You do understand sarcasm, right? I would think the mere mention of “vegetarian overlords” would have established that right away.

By: tdaxp

tdaxp — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:00:25 +0000

Thus so.

The only people I see tying George Soros to the cover-up are leftists.

For instance, your earlier comment.

By: Jeffrey James

Jeffrey James — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:34:24 +0000

“Regarding the Georoge Soros stuff, the only people I see peddling it are far-left bloggers trying to attack a strawman.”

How’s so?

By: tdaxp

tdaxp — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:45:29 +0000

Hey Jeffrey,

Thanks for the comments.

Regarding the Georoge Soros stuff, the only people I see peddling it are far-left bloggers trying to attack a strawman. It’s part of a pattern of deception by the ACGW cult..

Furthermore, what are your thoughts on disclosing the funding and research of “private” research projects that receive funding from energy companies that are federally subsidized?

I think all sources of funding, as well as tools used, should be cited in papers as a matter of academic ethics. I may be in a minority about this.

By: Jeffrey James

Jeffrey James — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:02:59 +0000

“Therefore, I support Obama’s Office is Science & Technology Policy trial balloon of forcing scientists who do work with federal funds to make the results of that work freely available.”

You know what? I support this effort as well, but I am not expecting to find what you are hoping to.

From Realclimate bloggers commenting on Computerworld.com

‘”More interesting is what is not contained in the emails,” the site noted. “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”‘

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141258/Global_warming_research_exposed_after_hack

Furthermore, what are your thoughts on disclosing the funding and research of “private” research projects that receive funding from energy companies that are federally subsidized?