It is wholly embarrassing for a university to attempt to defend its reputation > a decade after its low-grade scientists had caused a scandal by attempting to evade FOI reqs, by teaming up w/ an Extinction Rebellion activist and BBC producers to make a drama out of their crisis.
https://twitter.com/uniofeastanglia/status/1450008847637221378
The fact that they lack the humility to admit to their own mistakes and mend their practice and improve their science is demonstrated by this narrative intervention, and shows much climate 'science' for what it is: political activism.
Remember that at the heart of this story is a bunch of "scientists" who are too sensitive to accept criticism of their work, and too precious and too entitled to respond to people who wanted to understand how they had produced it.
They hid data in order to deprive the public of open, transparent and free debate, because they wanted to influence the outcome of scientific research and global political negotiations unhindered by people who may not (or may) agree.
That is why they are embarrassed.
That is why they are embarrassed.
Scientists who want to influence politics -- to transform society -- using their 'science' turn out to be the least willing to take part in or allow debate, either with their peers, or the public.
If you want to know why there are climate sceptics, look to those arrogant scientists.
*They* are the reason people take issue with institutional science.
And rightly so.
Scientists are not immune for ideology.
*They* are the reason people take issue with institutional science.
And rightly so.
Scientists are not immune for ideology.
Now, the @uniofeastanglia is *paying* Twitter, to promote its tweets highlighting tonight's BBC drama.
That is weird.
Really, really weird.
That is weird.
Really, really weird.
https://twitter.com/uniofeastanglia/status/1450178613752565769
For their part, the @BBC is equally determined to invert the reality of the #Climategate affair. This is the second reconstruction of events, the first being also a one-sided retelling of events broadcast in 2019. bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…
It is the scientists who had been put on a pedestal - by the BBC & others - that had embarrassed themselves.
The public, having been denied the information requested by FOIA, could now see the reality of the scientist.
He was human, after all. Petty. Vain. Vindictive. Entitled.
The public, having been denied the information requested by FOIA, could now see the reality of the scientist.
He was human, after all. Petty. Vain. Vindictive. Entitled.
It could have been an ordinary scientific dispute that nobody else paid much attention to.
But the work was given far too much significance by the political agenda. Far more than science could bear.
They had to work ever harder to protect their work & themselves from scrutiny.
But the work was given far too much significance by the political agenda. Far more than science could bear.
They had to work ever harder to protect their work & themselves from scrutiny.
And what is their answer now?
Better science?
Scientific debate?
No.
Fiction. Literally, fiction. Written by an XR activist.
That's *desperate*.
Better science?
Scientific debate?
No.
Fiction. Literally, fiction. Written by an XR activist.
That's *desperate*.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
