Rasmussen: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[Father Time]

There have been independent investigations into those emails and none of them have found fraud. However they were all done by scientists so if you think all science is intent on making up global warming then you can just dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

Independent my ass. Here is Penn States reasoning for finding him "innocent"

'level of success in proposing research and obtaining funding'

That wasn't their reasoning they just mentioned that he's a respected scientist because he gets grants.

The UK investigations were likewise populated by "investigators" who all had vested interests (i.e. they all had large sums of cash invested in the GW movement) in the outcome of the non investigations.

Oh you mean they had climate scientists on the panel? Well we all know that they can't be trusted. Listen even if they had committed fraud it wouldn't disprove the studies other people have done that supported global warming.

And I don't know if you realize this but those weren't the only investigations into it.

 

[IanC]

[ QUOTE=Father Time;3973239]

There have been independent investigations into those emails and none of them have found fraud. However they were all done by scientists so if you think all science is intent on making up global warming then you can just dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

Independent my ass. Here is Penn States reasoning for finding him "innocent"

'level of success in proposing research and obtaining funding'

That wasn't their reasoning they just mentioned that he's a respected scientist because he gets grants.

The UK investigations were likewise populated by "investigators" who all had vested interests (i.e. they all had large sums of cash invested in the GW movement) in the outcome of the non investigations.

Oh you mean they had climate scientists on the panel? Well we all know that they can't be trusted. Listen even if they had committed fraud it wouldn't disprove the studies other people have done that supported global warming.

And I don't know if you realize this but those weren't the only investigations into it.[/QUOTE]

which investigation would you like to discuss? all of them made the climate scientists and their results look bad, and most of them left a taint on the slipshod investigators.

 

[Father Time]

The six month one the EAU commissioned.

 

[westwall]

The six month one the EAU commissioned.

Here's a rather damning reviw of the EAU's report. Read it only if you want to learn something.


http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

 

[rdean]

Republicans think that more than 6% of scientists are Republican. But they call scientists "liars". Is that because Republicans are liars, so if scientists are liars, they must be Republican?

 

[Father Time]

The six month one the EAU commissioned.

Here's a rather damning reviw of the EAU's report. Read it only if you want to learn something.


http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

You have a paper from a lobbying group who mostly just oppose legislation related to global warming.

I'm not impressed.

 

[Father Time]

This part is interesting to me.

"No critics were on the panel and no critics were interviewed by the panel."

So what? I mean this is about what some scientists did and what they sent to other scientists. What insight would some random critics have brought?

If they did bring a critic all they would say would be "This email says X, and this email says Y" and since they have the emails they really don't need a critic.

 

[bripat9643]

You might want to look at trends, not the record highs or lows of a particular year. The reason I mentioned this one was because the politically motivated anti-science folks made such a big deal about "Snowmageddon" but not a peep out of them on what is quickly becoming one of the hottest summers in memory.

You posted the infamous Hockey Stick chart that Michael Mann conjured up.

It's a demonstrated fraud.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet they were in the final report. This isn't exactly evidence of a grand conspiracy.

And the whole point of peer review is that they filter out papers that are crap so show me a quote of someone saying they are denying a paper because it's anti Global Warming.

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt.

 

[westwall]

This part is interesting to me.

"No critics were on the panel and no critics were interviewed by the panel."

So what? I mean this is about what some scientists did and what they sent to other scientists. What insight would some random critics have brought?

If they did bring a critic all they would say would be "This email says X, and this email says Y" and since they have the emails they really don't need a critic.

Here is an analogy you might be able to follow. A hit man kills someone at the behest of a corporate executive. He is caught. He gets to prosecute himself using evidence he chooses. His judge is the man who hired him.

 

[bripat9643]

Like hell you have. All you have presented are political rants from sites with zero scientific standing.

Of course, "scientific understanding" means you agree with global warming!

Present us with a single Scientific Society, a single National Academy of Science, or a single major University that states the science behind AGW is incorrect. You cannot, because none exist. Not even in Outer Slobovia.

I thought you warmist turds didn't believe in determining scientific truth by taking polls.

 

[bripat9643]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

I've been posting articles about falsified data for years.

here is just one example:

A Pending American Temperaturegate « The Global Warming Hoax

And what peer reviewed journal was that published in?

Stupid ass, what you are stating is that there is a world wide conspriracy among scientists from every discipline to falsify data. Need more tinfoil for your hat? The Scientific Society that has the most climate scientists in it, the American Geophysical Union, statement concerning global warming is unequivocal.

ROFL! It has already been pointed out to you that warmist "scientist" conspired to keep all papers skeptical of global warming out of scientific journal.

The demand for peer review is nothing more than admission that you are participating in the con.

 

[rdean]

More than 6% of scientists are Republican. Scientists are liars. Therefore, I know where those "lying scientists" come from.

 

[bripat9643]

Sheesh. There are 97 publishing climatologists in the world. 95 of them state unequivocally that AGW is a fact. The other two, Singer and Lindzen, Singer states it is not, and Lindzen says that it is a fact, but exagerated. However, both testified before Congress for the tobacco companies that tobaco is harmless.

Turd is what you have for brains, idiot child.

How many of the 95 are not sucking on the government tit?

 

[bripat9643]

Do you understand what a peer reviewed scientific journal is?

In the case of climatology, it's a con game.

 

[bripat9643]

I see. The majority of the people in the AGU, the Royal Society, and the GSA are liars and frauds. That is your position.

The majority of people in the AGU, Royal Society and GSA do not author the opinions published by the leadership of these organizations. A small group of political hacks do that.

Seems to me that by that position, one person for sure is labeled a liar, a fraud, and a scientific pariah. And it sure ain't the people reporting on the melting glaciers, warmer temperatures, and obvious consequences of those things that we are seeing right now.

Who do you think is the liar and fraud?

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. The warming of the globe, and the reasons for it, is a scientific subject. Yet the wingnutters here seem to think that a poll of a misinformed public represents a serious change in the data. You fellows can call a dog a horse until the cows come home, but it will still not carry a saddle.

No one is claiming the poll proves a thing other than the fact that the public is no longer falling for the warmist con.

 

[Father Time]

This part is interesting to me.

"No critics were on the panel and no critics were interviewed by the panel."

So what? I mean this is about what some scientists did and what they sent to other scientists. What insight would some random critics have brought?

If they did bring a critic all they would say would be "This email says X, and this email says Y" and since they have the emails they really don't need a critic.

Here is an analogy you might be able to follow. A hit man kills someone at the behest of a corporate executive. He is caught. He gets to prosecute himself using evidence he chooses. His judge is the man who hired him.

So what you're saying is that every person in those review panels were directly involved in this?

That's demonstrably false.

 

[bripat9643]

He doesn't need to. Your side must first show some "real" science. You claim GW causes warmer temps. You also claim GW causes cooler temps. A thinking person recognises that the two predictions can't coexist within the same physical universe. That makes the theory unfalsifiable. That makes the theory false. In other words climatology is no better then the charlatanism of psychics.

Thanks for playing.

Old Rocks doesn't even get your point about global warming theory being non-falsifiable. He keeps insisting that you falsify it. He has a collection of canned responses for specific arguments. He pulls one out when it seems even remotely to apply, whether it actually does or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

You're not serious, are you?

Quaint talking point, but if you are admitting that you are unaware of the East Anglia admisssions, you have no standing in this discussion.

The warmist turds simply pretend that Climategate never happened, or that the Kangaroo whitewash courts created to provide cover for the perpetrators have some kind of integrity. More and more their audience is restricted to themselves because the public simply isn't listening anymore. Things have reached the point where people's eyes glaze over whenever some warmist shill preaches the true faith.

That's the end of the global warming religion.