All I've seen so far is a bunch of quote mining and lies from the deniers. For example: "Data sets must not be passed on to third parties under any circumstances. Any scientist requiring data which happens to have been supplied already to someone else, even within the same institute or programme of research, must first approach one of the NERC Data Centres, who have agreed to maintain records of data users for UKMO."
So all these claims about fraud and such all turn out to be nonsense.
That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. For example:
"Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)"
Laughable. They are talking about how an already mediocre journal has been taken over by people with a clear agenda, so it has no credibility anymore.
"Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)"
Nope, not a FoI request. Rather, some guy who tried to get access to other people's e-mails because he feared that they were talking behind his back. Got nothing to do with actual science.
"Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)"
This is just sheer dishonesty. This "trick" thing has been debunked all over the web.
You're clearly not interested in the philisophical or ethical arguments for and against Dawkins views, and since you seem to qualify Strobel as a 'creationist', as if that disqualifies his opinion, then you will also disqualify my views, since I also am a creationist.
Yes, Strobel is a creationist, and he is also a blatant liar. The book you referred to contains a bunch of lies, and only shows the man's own ignorance and dishonesty.
As an example, an excerpt from a review of 'The God Delusion':
Epic fail.
In general, Dawkins is leading modern Atheism down the path of total denial of spirituality and religion, to faithfully reject it as impossibly meaningless, and most importantly to deny the possibility of any fact to support even the belief in it.
Epic fail again. Even Dawkins only places himself at 6 on his atheism scale of 1-7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute denial of God. So as you can see, you are ignorant and dishonest about what Dawkins is actually saying. Dawkins does not deny the possibility of anything.
I reject his premise as demonstrably untrue, factually and philisphically.
Oh, but he is entirely correct. The fundie movement is trying to replace science with religion.
By this definition, most Christians are 'fundamentalist' believers.
I don't think so. Most Christians are of the wishy-washy pick-and-choose type.
Indeed, Dawkins starts out in most cases mistating the intentions of religion, and never looking back.
Good, legitimate criticism is difficult when you find out that one side has been manipulating data, deleting data, strong-arming publications and otherwise engaging in questionable behavior in order to sabotage the opposing side.
AGW is going to lose the political struggle because of Climategate.
If so, that will only be because of some people's dishonesty, and other people's ignorance. I have not seen one single "damning" issue in the whole "climategate" farce. All I see is ring-wing nutcases lying about it and making up stories to make it a real "climategate".
As these emails reveal, it is the climate alarmists which used every dirty trick, including but not limited to:
Actually, they don't. For example, the "hiding data" thing is nonsense. They didn't give out data which they had licensed from something else. Useless FOIA requests aren't going to help. If you want the data, contact the people who own and license out the data. Your list is based on quote-mining and lies about what the mails actually contain.
All of those are significant findings - yet the "scientists" try their best not to give him data
They can't give him the data because they licensed it from someone else, and don't have the right to distribute it. If he wants the data, he should contact those who owns the data. Filing pointless FOIA requests for data you know they can't give you is just stupid.
The popularity of Wikipedia is one of the clearest symptoms of the human condition on the Internet
Yes, namely this: Once something gets more than a few users, the complaints will start coming in. Just because some people are complaining doesn't mean that Wikipedia is in trouble.
You're not there to promote scholarship, or pedagogy: you're there to support the rules.
The rules are there for a reason. Yes, they will be enforced. Welcome to the internet. Try signing up on some web forum and breaking the rules. Let's see how long you last.
The Internet was a lot easier to find introductory information from before Wikipedia: search engines returned, at the top, accessible subject-specific sites contributed to by researchers, professionals or keen amateurs
Wait, so you blame Wikipedia for Google's ranking of pages? You are crazy.
I don't think the number of readers was actually a point of contention.
But the sensationalists keep crying about how Wikipedia is apparently dying. The author is making a point that Wikipedia is actually attracting a bigger and bigger audience.
Also, people will always complain. Wikipedia is so well known and popular that there are going to be a lot of complaints out there. Most of them probably nonsense.
Wikipedia has a huge audience. You are never going to please everyone. You will always have some people complaining. That's life. Just because there are a few complaints doesn't mean that the complaints actually represent the majority.
Then MS was making money like gangbusters for a while and before you know it they were too big for peoples comfort level and only 5 years after they officially "got big", they're hauled into court for being too big.
Microsoft got into trouble because of its conscious strategy to use illegal methods to undermine competition the market. Just like IBM used anti-competitive practices. Microsoft isn't hated because it's big, but because it does evil shit.
Software-makers? Opera Mini is a service which Chinese people used to get around the government's firewall. Yes, people who do not follow orders from the Chinese government are indeed thrown in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I understand why. I have seen the same religious BS many times.
You have yet to show how Dawkins is wrong about anything.
I doubt it. Unless you change it out of spite, as a response to people who refute it.
The other guy said that Google is "immeshed in fighting Microsoft instead of evolving their own marketplaces"...
So all these claims about fraud and such all turn out to be nonsense.
That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. For example:
"Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)"
Laughable. They are talking about how an already mediocre journal has been taken over by people with a clear agenda, so it has no credibility anymore.
"Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)"
Nope, not a FoI request. Rather, some guy who tried to get access to other people's e-mails because he feared that they were talking behind his back. Got nothing to do with actual science.
"Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)"
This is just sheer dishonesty. This "trick" thing has been debunked all over the web.
Huh? Explain, please.
Yes, Strobel is a creationist, and he is also a blatant liar. The book you referred to contains a bunch of lies, and only shows the man's own ignorance and dishonesty.
Epic fail.
Epic fail again. Even Dawkins only places himself at 6 on his atheism scale of 1-7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute denial of God. So as you can see, you are ignorant and dishonest about what Dawkins is actually saying. Dawkins does not deny the possibility of anything.
Oh, but he is entirely correct. The fundie movement is trying to replace science with religion.
I don't think so. Most Christians are of the wishy-washy pick-and-choose type.
False. He is entirely correct about it.
Lee Strobel is a creationist. That book is trash. Now, please answer my question. I would like one single specific example. Thanks.
Evidence, please.
If so, that will only be because of some people's dishonesty, and other people's ignorance. I have not seen one single "damning" issue in the whole "climategate" farce. All I see is ring-wing nutcases lying about it and making up stories to make it a real "climategate".
Nice straw man. Borrowed from the creationist tactic book, I gather?
Citation needed.
Such as?
Actually, they don't. For example, the "hiding data" thing is nonsense. They didn't give out data which they had licensed from something else. Useless FOIA requests aren't going to help. If you want the data, contact the people who own and license out the data. Your list is based on quote-mining and lies about what the mails actually contain.
They can't give him the data because they licensed it from someone else, and don't have the right to distribute it. If he wants the data, he should contact those who owns the data. Filing pointless FOIA requests for data you know they can't give you is just stupid.
So what are they censoring away if they allowed 250 questions asking about the same things over and over again?
Aynd Rand? LOL. Regardless of any laws, Microsoft's conscious strategy to undermine competition was evil.
Yes, namely this: Once something gets more than a few users, the complaints will start coming in. Just because some people are complaining doesn't mean that Wikipedia is in trouble.
The rules are there for a reason. Yes, they will be enforced. Welcome to the internet. Try signing up on some web forum and breaking the rules. Let's see how long you last.
Wait, so you blame Wikipedia for Google's ranking of pages? You are crazy.
But the sensationalists keep crying about how Wikipedia is apparently dying. The author is making a point that Wikipedia is actually attracting a bigger and bigger audience.
Also, people will always complain. Wikipedia is so well known and popular that there are going to be a lot of complaints out there. Most of them probably nonsense.
Wikipedia has a huge audience. You are never going to please everyone. You will always have some people complaining. That's life. Just because there are a few complaints doesn't mean that the complaints actually represent the majority.
Microsoft got into trouble because of its conscious strategy to use illegal methods to undermine competition the market. Just like IBM used anti-competitive practices. Microsoft isn't hated because it's big, but because it does evil shit.
Local employees are automatically involved, since the Google HQ in China is the obvious place for the Chinese government to go.
Software-makers? Opera Mini is a service which Chinese people used to get around the government's firewall. Yes, people who do not follow orders from the Chinese government are indeed thrown in jail.
No, Bonjour could not be used to host chats, interactive whiteboards, stream music with a simple web browser, etc.