Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's called idiots not knowing what 'jargon' means, idiots assuming that all things are antipodal dichotomies, idiots thinking that science is a monumental conspiracy, and idiots disregarding the fact that without the super small level of 'climategate' data, 100% of unrelated data still come to the same conclusion. Kinda like how even if geology was entirely bunk, the phylogenetic tree of common descent (evolution) would still hold true since all other independent sciences still come up with the exact same conclusions
The argument being made is that almost all published climate studies come to the same conclusion because those that come to the opposite conclusion are unlikely to be published or to receive grant money (other than from oil companies themselves).

Even though the "Climategate" scientists were leaders in the field, if we ignore their data then yes, we still have plenty of other data to rely on. But if those scientists were also able to stack the peer review and grant process against other scientists who didn't share their agenda, that skews things a lot more than any research that may have come from these specific scientists. And the e-mails show that these scientists were persistently attempting to do this.

I obviously don't think science is a massive conspiracy but certain branches of science can move in that direction if they get hijacked by special-interest politics, corporations or government agencies with an agenda. If a global warming skeptic posted a study that was funded by Exxon Mobil you would rightly point out that that study should not be taken seriously. For the same reason to just say "Well, ignore these guys' data and just focus on everyone else's that says the same thing" is completely missing the point of why what happened was so bad.