You're still circling the same gap, mhaze.

Whether you call it an "observation" or an "accusation" is beside the point. You said others weren't engaging with the data. When asked which part of the data warrants engagement, you haven't named one.

And now you say the data in the report isn't new, isn't surprising, and doesn't actually overturn anything. Fine. But that makes your earlier posture even harder to square.

If the data aren't new, aren't decisive, and don't materially change the assessment, then there's nothing here that needs rescuing from "suppression", and nothing for others to be faulted for not addressing.

What you're left with is a narrative about access, formats, and gatekeepers. That's not a scientific claim. It's a political one.

So again, very simply:
either point to a specific claim in the report you think deserves substantive debate, or stop telling people they're avoiding "the data". You can't keep insisting both that nothing in the report is new and that it represents some great unravelling.

Back to you...

"When asked which part of the data warrants engagement, you haven't named one."

The whole report needs to be read.... especially by those who just believe the 'mainstream'.

"And now you say the data in the report isn't new, isn't surprising, and doesn't actually overturn anything."

Now? I've been saying that from the outset. Let me repeat... it doesn't overturn 'mainstream' opinion, just offers a different, previously suppressed, opinion.

"then there's nothing here that needs rescuing from "suppression".

The data is well known to those who have desire and wit to find it. The report is important because it draws it together for others to see the alternate view - and that's what so vexes the 'mainstream'.

If you think there's some aspects of the report that are clearly wrong (and remember, being different to 'mainstream' assertions isn't the same as wrong) then point it out. Oh wait, that'd require checking the data and we can't have that. Much better to rely on what the 'mainstream' tells us, n'est pas?

This is where it stalls, mhaze.

You say the report doesn't overturn anything, contains nothing new, and yet is somehow being suppressed because it's dangerous to the "mainstream". You also insist the entire report must be engaged with, but still can't point to a single claim that actually does the work you keep hinting at.

That combination makes substantive discussion impossible. If everything is important but nothing is decisive, there's nothing concrete to debate.

You're free to treat the report as a statement of an alternative worldview. Just don't pretend that declining to chase a 150-page document with no specified claims is avoidance of "the data". It isn't.

You won't cite anything from the report because you know there is nothing in it that will withstand scrutiny. And the longer you drag this out, the more obvious that becomes.

While not directly responding to this thread I would like to make an
observation somewhat related.
At this time of year, say Nov to March I normally open the bedroom
window to let in some ool air.
Being someone who has to get up during the night I am able to note
the state of airflow.
Almost without fail from about 7pm to 8am the night is absolutely still.
Only the slightest waft of air is seen. The leaves on the trees are absolutely still.
How the hell do they expect to power the economy at night on that.
It does not seem to be realised that the sun drives the wind.
Never noticed the yachts after a days sailing coming back to their
moorings on engines ?
So much for ocean turbines.

"yet is somehow being suppressed "

Nup. Never said it was being suppressed. I said it contained information that had been withheld from the general public and was now in a format that made it accessible. The report wasn't being suppressed but the data previous had been. That's why the 'mainstream' (a giveaway description if ever there was one) are so vexed by it.

"you know there is nothing in it that will withstand scrutiny"

Well if you think that's true and not just one of your standard unsubstantiated assertions, why not pick out some part or other and show how it doesn't stand scrutiny. Oh, but remember, asserting its not true because you don't want it to be true doesn't count.

Yep, you did, mhaze.

//Nup. Never said it was being suppressed.//

We're not going to resolve this because you keep changing the description while avoiding the same basic step.

"Suppressed", "withheld", "not accessible", "gatekept" - pick whichever word you prefer. You're still asserting that material evidence was kept from view, then revealed in this report, and that this is what supposedly unsettles the "mainstream".

Yet you also maintain that:

- the data aren't new,
- the report doesn't overturn anything, and
- no specific claim can be singled out as decisive.

That's the contradiction. And it's why the burden doesn't shift.

I'm not obliged to guess which of 150 pages you think matters, any more than a reader is obliged to accept insinuations in place of arguments. If there's a claim you think fails scrutiny in existing assessments, name it. If not, then this really is just a story about access and distrust, not evidence.

How about you just pick out what you thought was the most damning bit of evidence? Or, you could just keep squirming - because that's working so well for you at the moment.