![]() | ||
2011-03-23 07:10:22 | Watts' hypocrisy | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.20.55 |
Eyebrows pricked up at this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil-just-romm-2-solution/
Eg - Watts deigned to let BEST have his surfacestation data because he thinks their "method has promise". So that's why he's refusing to release his surfacestation data - he doesn't trust what others might do with the data. Am I the only one that finds this secrecy and a lack of transparency a little ironic from someone who cries foul at any hint of secrecy and a lack of transparency? | |
2011-03-23 07:26:40 | ||
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183 |
||
2011-03-23 07:28:18 | Heh | |
Daniel Bailey Daniel Bailey yooper49855@hotmail... 97.83.150.37 |
If Watts could play anyone in film it would be: | |
2011-03-23 08:32:43 | irony | |
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 64.129.227.4 |
Yes considering how much Watts et al. have criticized climate scientists for not being sufficiently forthcoming with their data, this is a pretty extreme level of hypocrisy. | |
2011-03-23 09:10:36 | Two-face | |
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 121.222.20.55 |
I smell another Rob Honeycutt post :-) | |
2011-03-23 09:14:38 | ||
Rob Honeycutt robhon@mac... 98.207.62.223 |
Oh... My ears were burning. Nope, that was the guy in the picture Daniel posted. :-) |
I just posted this comment there:
“I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them]”
FOI request – Please send me a copy of your data ASAP.
I wonder if he remembers that he banned me a few years ago??
I guess the chances of it being accepted is small and I doubt if he will bother emailing me with a response (he did when he banned me).