Pants-of-dog wrote:So anyone who believes that ACC is a thing is automatically part of the conspiracy and willingly hides the nefarious lies of climatologists?
No, that is just another of your strawman fallacies; but commissions of inquiry populated by such people are not independent, which was the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
The only that quote says is that Clive Crook thinks the inquiries were wrong.
Wrong. It says they were wrong because they were biased
-- i.e., not independent. Which was the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
It does not say they were not independent.
But it provides EVIDENCE that they were not, which is the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
This does not mean that the second UEA investigation was not independent.
But it provides additional EVIDENCE that it was not, which is what you requested I provide. Remember?
It also ignores the fact that the UEA made two investigations: one about whether or not there was evidence of collusion in the emails, and the second re-reviewing the CRU papaers that had laredy been published.
Irrelevant. It is still evidence that the investigation was not independent, which is the point you requested evidence for. Remember?
Lord Oxburgh chaired the latter.
That's what I said.
The former (i.e. the one that is actually about your claim) was chaired by Muir Russell.
An editorial from a noted denialist is not evidence.
The FACTS he identifies in support of his views ARE evidence. Which is what you requested.REMEMBER???
As previously mentioned, you simply have an idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes evidence, one qualification of which is that it not disprove any of your false beliefs.
At best, it would be a first step to finding evidence.
No, that is a bald falsehood. He states definite facts that provide evidence that the inquiries were not independent.
Which is what you requested, and I provided.