It is also possible that some of them might agree with the letter's unnamed author (s) that it's acceptable to dishonestly
misrepresent the objective facts about climate science, but until that's been proven on an individual basis, I refuse to ascribe that level of ethical failure to anyone.
Not exact matches
They select one or more sites that they believe are highly
objective and authenticated, and one or more that they think
misrepresent facts or try to disguise opinion as
fact.
What brings this clusterpuckery to the level of fraud - the purposeful and deliberate criminal misrepresentation of
facts in pursuit of a pecuniary gain at the expense of other people, which could not have been achieved without telling lies - is the
fact that the breach of method was manifestly not inadvertent, but had been undertaken by the investigators during the course of data - gathering, with the overt
objective of
misrepresenting the truth shared by those investigators among the raters in a manifestly contrived scheme of duplicity.
And hence why Climate Change «contrarians» have, ludicrously relative to Climate Change Naysaying sites, convinced themselves that «John Cook is a liar» and that «Skeptical Science» Censors comments and
misrepresents, when it is one of the most
objective sites out there (in
fact understating a lot of the critiques of Climate Change Naysaying) but one that systematically breaks down most of the basic myths that do drive Climate Change «Naysaying» or Misunderstanding.