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

Is this tooo hard for you? I didn't say the report was being suppressed just that the data and opinions in it had been had previously been suppressed.

Again, is this tooooo hard for you? The data isn't new to those with the wit and desire to find it in the past. I assume that counts you out. None of it is decisive because there is no such thing. The CAGW octopus is so all pervading that no one paper or set of papers will overturn it. And indeed we won't even know when it is overturned. It is slowly unravelling and increasing numbers are turning their back on it but we'll never have a eureka moment when the world suddenly realises it was all a hoax.

It is said that science advances one death at a time and this is especially so of CAGW. Too many people have staked and based careers and wealth on it for them to simply say, oops we was wrong.

But as we see reports like this increasingly hit the mainstream. more and more will just ignore the scare-mongers. Its glorious to behold.

In the meantime, its telling that, despite assuring us that the report doesn't stand scrutiny, you can't point to any examples where that's the case.

I know, mhaze.

//I didn't say the report was being suppressed just that the data and opinions in it had been had previously been suppressed.//

I never suggested otherwise. I said you are relying on a narrative that unspecified evidence was previously withheld and is now being revealed, while also saying nothing in it is new or decisive. That contradiction is the issue.

Is this too hard for you?

//None of it is decisive because there is no such thing.//

If there is no possible decisive evidence, then this isn't a scientific disagreement. Science relies on claims that can, in principle, be tested and overturned.

//We won't even know when it is overturned.//

That removes falsification entirely. A view that cannot be shown to be wrong, even in retrospect, isn't being defended on evidenti grounds.

//It is slowly unravelling and increasing numbers are turning their back on it.//

That's a sociological claim about belief change, not an argument about data or models.

//Too many people have staked careers and wealth on it.//

Explaining disagreement by motive rather than evidence is exactly how belief systems insulate themselves from challenge.

//Despite assuring us that the report doesn't stand scrutiny, you can't point to any examples.//

You've already said there are no decisive claims to point to. That's why the burden doesn't shift.

//It's glorious to behold.//

That's not an analysis. It's affirmation.

"I never suggested otherwise."

Well except for the multiple times you said otherwise.

"That contradiction is the issue."

Its only a contradiction in your mind. Otherwise it makes perfect logic.

"That removes falsification entirely"

The whole CAGW debate has removed falsification. That' why its no longer science and instead just a cult.

Oh by the way, claiming that "there is nothing in it that will withstand scrutiny" while not being able to point to any such thing is rather revealing. Its the stock standard JD art of the unsupported assertion that he then expects others to address.

Feel free to quote one, mhaze.

//Well except for the multiple times you said otherwise.//

I haven't said that you claimed the report was suppressed. I've referred to your repeated statements that the data/opinions were previously "suppressed" or "withheld" and are now being made accessible. Those are your words.

//I didn't say the report was being suppressed just that the data and opinions in it had previously been suppressed.//

Again, I know.

And that is what I've been responding to: your claim that unspecified data/opinions were previously withheld and are now being revealed.

//Its only a contradiction in your mind.//

No, it's a contradiction because you simultaneously say:

- nothing in the report is new,
- nothing is decisive,
- yet the material had to be "withheld" and is now unsettling the mainstream.

Those positions don't sit comfortably together.

//The whole CAGW debate has removed falsification.//

That's a philosophical claim about the field as a whole. It doesn't rescue the internal tension in your argument.

//You can't point to any examples…//

You've repeatedly declined to name a specific claim from the report that does the work you're suggesting it does.

The burden doesn't shift until you do.