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

[westwall]

If the "experts" limited themselves to accurately reporting the facts and didn't engage in a conspiricy to deny opposing viewpoints in the various Journals, I would agree with you. However, they did and still do all of those things. In a court of law they would be classified as perjurors, and as they say in court, once a liar...allways a liar. They are scientific pariahs and they are damaging science as a whole.

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

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.

I used to find it painful to read anything coming from "conservative America" that tried to explain anything scientific in any way whatsoever. Then I realized it was all a matter of "perspective". You have to approach what they say as "satire", then it suddenly becomes "readable".

As I pointed out, these are people that "insist" that more than 6% of scientists have simply got to be Republican and conservative. But these very same people are telling their children that scientists are lazy liars and the Grand Canyon was created by "Noah's Flood" as historically documented in the children's fable, "The story of Noah's Ark".

Once right wing children are fully indoctrinated, there is no way they would ever study "real science". They only see science as a "competing faith".

Then how do you explain your leading lights acceptence of this philosophy deanie? Hmmm? Tell me where this sort of behavior would be acceptable in ANY scientific arena or discipline.


even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is

 

[westwall]

More lies from the Left


RCP has them being pretty accurate



Marist 11/3 - 11/3 804 LV 4.0 52 43 Obama +9

Battleground (Lake)* 11/2 - 11/3 800 LV 3.5 52 47 Obama +5

Battleground 11/2 - 11/3 800 LV 3.5 50 48 Obama +2

Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/3 3000 LV 2.0 52 46 Obama +6...


Final Results -- -- -- 52.9 45.6 Obama +7.3

Notice how much off the Lefts favorite polls are off

Gallup 10/31 - 11/2 2472 LV 2.0 55 44 Obama +11
CBS News 10/31 - 11/2 714 LV -- 51 42 Obama +9
ABC News/Wash Post
10/30 - 11/2 2470 LV 2.5 53 4 Obama +9


truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Perhaps if the Left bothered to educate themselves or do their own
research instead of "parroting" talking points then they would
really learn something

No, that would require them to do their own work and work makes their brains hurt.

 

[Father Time]

I haven't read through the whole thing but

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

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.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is

Sure thing. See that little bit I highlighted yet again for you? That is the height of scientific malfeasance. That little missive alone renders all that they do irrelevant. They would rather alter one of the cornerstones of scientifc enquiry then allow a dissenting voice.

You are just guessing why they hate the paper. Stop doing that.

And you seem to think that that is OK. And you wonder why the scientific community is abandoning them and their cause in droves.

No I do not think that's OK, I think they were probably exaggerating but they failed so you can't use that as evidence peer review is bad.

 

[Father Time]

If the "experts" limited themselves to accurately reporting the facts and didn't engage in a conspiricy to deny opposing viewpoints in the various Journals, I would agree with you. However, they did and still do all of those things. In a court of law they would be classified as perjurors, and as they say in court, once a liar...allways a liar. They are scientific pariahs and they are damaging science as a whole.

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

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.

Why is your side losing so spectacularly then? Hmmmm? Three years ago every wacko environmental law you could think of was likely to get passed, now.......crickets MENSA boy, crickets. That is all the proof I need...and the rest of the planet as well it seems.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rdean]

We have, many times... Go look for yourself.

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

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.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is





Game, Set, Match. Any scientist who resorts to these methods and philosophically believes it is proper to do this sort of behavior is no scientist. They are at best a propagandist.

Actually, Bush and the Republicans already tried that. Trying to force scientists to change their data to match administration policy. Only another example of Republican/conservative "morals and values".


Information is the lifeblood of freedom, critical thinking and progress. By suppressing or
distorting the information underlying the proper functioning of our society, the
government is failing in its’ obligation towards the scientific community and the larger
populace who rely on well-grounded public policy decision-making, untangled at its
empirical levels from political persuasion.

http://alice508.myweb.uga.edu/documents/200503_ruckus_TheRapeofData.pdf

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks underestimates the political components of scientific society statements and scientific journal editors. He also overestimates the validity of non sequitur conclusions of alarmist model projections.

just because the earth is warming somewhat that does not prove man is to blame. his citing weather events as proof is even more farfetched. his refusal to even acknowledge that there are numerous examples of scientific malfeasance in paleo climate reconstructions show that he has reduced himself to nothing more than a cheerleader rooting for his favourite side.

 

[Neotrotsky]

wow
that is very well stated

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[westwall]

I haven't read through the whole thing but



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.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is

Sure thing. See that little bit I highlighted yet again for you? That is the height of scientific malfeasance. That little missive alone renders all that they do irrelevant. They would rather alter one of the cornerstones of scientifc enquiry then allow a dissenting voice.

You are just guessing why they hate the paper. Stop doing that.

And you seem to think that that is OK. And you wonder why the scientific community is abandoning them and their cause in droves.

No I do not think that's OK, I think they were probably exaggerating but they failed so you can't use that as evidence peer review is bad.

Surely, you are not that dense? They are discussing the actual corruption of the peer review process and you think that that's OK? Really?

I dare you to go find the actual string of emails that led up to this one and then after reading them you come back here and defend it with a straight face. I dare you.

Then after your eye's have been opened a little for you I further dare you to go through and look at all of the emails that were released...and released they were, they were not hacked as the warmists would have you believe. Someone on the inside finally got disgusted with the apallingly poor level of "science" being practiced at the CRU and released the emails so that the rest of the world could see fraud in action.


Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 - WikiLeaks

 

[westwall]

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

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.

Why is your side losing so spectacularly then? Hmmmm? Three years ago every wacko environmental law you could think of was likely to get passed, now.......crickets MENSA boy, crickets. That is all the proof I need...and the rest of the planet as well it seems.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Science is Settled"


Remember that mantra from the warmists? I suggest you try again. This time put a little effort into it.

 

[westwall]

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

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.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is





Game, Set, Match. Any scientist who resorts to these methods and philosophically believes it is proper to do this sort of behavior is no scientist. They are at best a propagandist.

Actually, Bush and the Republicans already tried that. Trying to force scientists to change their data to match administration policy. Only another example of Republican/conservative "morals and values".


Information is the lifeblood of freedom, critical thinking and progress. By suppressing or
distorting the information underlying the proper functioning of our society, the
government is failing in its’ obligation towards the scientific community and the larger
populace who rely on well-grounded public policy decision-making, untangled at its
empirical levels from political persuasion.

http://alice508.myweb.uga.edu/documents/200503_ruckus_TheRapeofData.pdf

Nice attempt at diversion there deanie. How about the fact that your warmist idealogues have been practicing the SAME thing? How does that compute in your tiny little brain?

 

[Father Time]

Why is your side losing so spectacularly then? Hmmmm? Three years ago every wacko environmental law you could think of was likely to get passed, now.......crickets MENSA boy, crickets. That is all the proof I need...and the rest of the planet as well it seems.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Science is Settled"


Remember that mantra from the warmists? I suggest you try again. This time put a little effort into it.

Sorry dumbass but saying "the public thinks it's false and that proves it false" is a logical fallacy no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Try harder.

 

[Father Time]

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is

Sure thing. See that little bit I highlighted yet again for you? That is the height of scientific malfeasance. That little missive alone renders all that they do irrelevant. They would rather alter one of the cornerstones of scientifc enquiry then allow a dissenting voice.

You are just guessing why they hate the paper. Stop doing that.

And you seem to think that that is OK. And you wonder why the scientific community is abandoning them and their cause in droves.

No I do not think that's OK, I think they were probably exaggerating but they failed so you can't use that as evidence peer review is bad.

Surely, you are not that dense? They are discussing the actual corruption of the peer review process and you think that that's OK? Really?]

I don't think it's possible to be more dense than you are right now.

 

[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.

 

[westwall]

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Science is Settled"


Remember that mantra from the warmists? I suggest you try again. This time put a little effort into it.

Sorry dumbass but saying "the public thinks it's false and that proves it false" is a logical fallacy no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Try harder.

Why bother? I pointed out your pot calling the kettle black so that particular piece of drivel is done. Nice attempt there olfraud lite. Or should I just cut to the chase and call you MENSA boy as well?

 

[westwall]

You are just guessing why they hate the paper. Stop doing that.

No I do not think that's OK, I think they were probably exaggerating but they failed so you can't use that as evidence peer review is bad.

Surely, you are not that dense? They are discussing the actual corruption of the peer review process and you think that that's OK? Really?]

I don't think it's possible to be more dense than you are right now.

Ooooohh 3rd grade repartee, how original.

 

[westwall]

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'

In other words so long as he brings them money they don't care. In other words they have turned Penn State into nothing more then a brothel.

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.

So MENSA boy lite. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it. But you are a true believer so don't care about facts. I see you still havn't gone through the emails yet. What's the matter? Frightened of what you will find?

 

[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'

In other words so long as he brings them money they don't care. In other words they have turned Penn State into nothing more then a brothel.

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.

So MENSA boy lite. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it. But you are a true believer so don't care about facts. I see you still havn't gone through the emails yet. What's the matter? Frightened of what you will find?

Unwilling to sift through 64MB of emails just to find out what you're talking about. You can't link to the individual chain?

 

[westwall]

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'

In other words so long as he brings them money they don't care. In other words they have turned Penn State into nothing more then a brothel.

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.

So MENSA boy lite. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it. But you are a true believer so don't care about facts. I see you still havn't gone through the emails yet. What's the matter? Frightened of what you will find?

Unwilling to sift through 64MB of emails just to find out what you're talking about. You can't link to the individual chain?

Not at the moment. I am enjoying my birthday and don't care to wade through it again either. Just poke around and you'll be amazed at what you find.

 

[Father Time]

"The Science is Settled"


Remember that mantra from the warmists? I suggest you try again. This time put a little effort into it.

Sorry dumbass but saying "the public thinks it's false and that proves it false" is a logical fallacy no matter how much spin you try to put on it.

Try harder.

Why bother? I pointed out your pot calling the kettle black so that particular piece of drivel is done. Nice attempt there olfraud lite. Or should I just cut to the chase and call you MENSA boy as well?

Except I've never said that because lots of scientists believe it it must be true. I did say that all those scientists agreeing to fake it is unlikely, that's all.