#findsource

Carrick,

When I read how you defined “incessant” and “bashing”, I doubted for a second if it was really you who just answered me.

You’re supposed to be a dissenting scientist whom I have all the reasons in the world to respect, and now you’re playing semantic games.

This was a simple question.

And you’re playing semantics, and minimizes the scope of Nick’s judgement, which makes no sense whatsoever.

Simple due diligence: the word “bashing” occurs in the second comment of the thread:

More fulmination about the “hiding” of the stations data. The irony is that it was released five months ago, and AFAICT no sceptics have bothered to look at it. Easier to go on bashing DoE etc.

Talk about prevarication… and having a conversation!

Yes, let’s continue to talk about what we were talking about: CRU’s handling of the data.

Because, well, that’s what curious scientists do, and certainly not because:

[I]f it were revealed that the data original with CRU was [let's abreviate to "mishandled"] there might well be concerns at CRU that their reputation would be tarnished and the flow of funding for projects adversely affected.

Scientific curiosity. Of course.