Scientists Behaving Badly - More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming

[westwall]

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

You aren't really this stupid, are you?

Actually, yes he is!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He confirms they are his.

"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

He confirms they are his.

"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

Of course they are grasshopper. And whistleblowers are allowed to expose fraud wherever it occurs, no? Or can whistlblowers only expose bad behavior in companies you don't like?

??? So anytime someone releases a bunch of emails, its proof of fraud?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

You aren't really this stupid, are you?

They aren't?

 

[Si modo]

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

 

[westwall]

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

Why? You ignore simple facts so wasting time spelling things out is likewise a waste of time. Go find the emails (they are very easy to find) and go through them yourself. You claim to be Doctoral candidate (which I highly doubt) so you should have no trouble reviewing them for yourself.

Of course, though, seeing as you are nothing more then a brainwashed political hack I don't give it much of a chance you will actually look. You're a faithful servant of your masters and to look at their crimes is blasphemy to you.

I understand.

 

[The T]

He confirms they are his.

"Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.

I mean why not? The Government(s) wanted a particuliar result so they could politically gear up to change behaviours they wanted to change and these creeps were too happy to oblige as the government(s) were paying them to manipulate the data to the government(s) liking...

 

[bripat9643]

OK. Let's say they are his. Now so what? Are scientists not allowed to send emails?

You aren't really this stupid, are you?

They aren't?

I guess you are.

 

[Si modo]

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.

I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.

 

[westwall]

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.

I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.

I suppose if he is studying at Penn State he has a chance. Based on what we've seen with manns crap and how the admin actively protected child molestation I could see toober getting a degree from them.

But a legit university? Naaaahhh!

 

[Political Junky]

Shut my mouth, the wingnut National Review doesn't believe in global warming.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

Why?

Why? Why should you provide evidence for your claims? Is that a serious question?

You ignore simple facts so wasting time spelling things out is likewise a waste of time. Go find the emails (they are very easy to find) and go through them yourself. You claim to be Doctoral candidate (which I highly doubt) so you should have no trouble reviewing them for yourself.

I'm a bit confused. You're the one claiming there is damning evidence in these emails - yet instead of being able to point to the particular emails which are damning, you seem to think I'm going to wade through 5000 emails for you, and find those particular emails, so that you will then have actual evidence for your claims. Why can't you do your own research?

Of course, though, seeing as you are nothing more then a brainwashed political hack I don't give it much of a chance you will actually look. You're a faithful servant of your masters and to look at their crimes is blasphemy to you.

I understand.

Look where exactly? Presumably - since you claim the emails reveal:
"Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship." - you should know which particular emails provide evidence that each of the above is happening. I mean, I wouldn't think you'd just be basing your above claims off of someone just telling you its so, without having actually read the particular emails yourself! So please, show me which ones in particular support the above claims, so I can actually verify your assertion!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.

Great. Show me one in particular. Link or direct quotation. And explain what it reveals that is damning and how.

I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.

I've yet to be pointed to where the evidence of this scientific mis-conduct is. All I have seen so far is "Its there, trust me, just go find it yourself" - which is a very, very unconvincing argument.

I have already passed my defense, BTW, and will be awarded my degree on December 16th.

 

[Si modo]

I suggest you review it and point me to the specific emails which support your claims of "Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc." - until then, all you're doing is making assertions without evidence.

By the way, it helps to write in complete sentences.

The last set clearly demonstrated that, and several emails have been quoted in this thread that demonstrate the same.

Great. Show me one in particular. Link or direct quotation. And explain what it reveals that is damning and how.

I don't envision your defense being successful. If you cannot even recognize scientific misconduct and don't know what scientific integrity is, you should not have any degree.

I've yet to be pointed to where the evidence of this scientific mis-conduct is. All I have seen so far is "Its there, trust me, just go find it yourself" - which is a very, very unconvincing argument.

I have already passed my defense, BTW, and will be awarded my degree on December 16th.

And you had to ask me what scientific integrity is?

It looks like the dumbing down of higher education has finally creeped into graduate schools. It was inevitable.

 

[Old Rocks]

However, like a bacterium festering away someplace dank and fetid, Climategate is poised to infect reality once again: The Guardian is reporting that a second cache of stolen emails has been released anonymously, and once again the cries of conspiracy are being heard. However, it looks like these emails aren’t really new, and were simply from the original stolen batch, but were held back until today. Mind you, the emails from the first Climategate were released right before a big climate conference, in an obvious attempt to derail it in the media. This new batch was released days before a similar conference, in what appears to be a similar propaganda move.

The fact that information is released at an opportune moment doesn't make it propaganda. Deap Throat wanted to derail the Nixon Adminisration. That didn't make his information bogus. The reason you release negative information is to put a stop to the nefarious activities it exposes.

Obviously, the person behind this release wants to derail the climate conference, but what sane intelligent person wouldn't want to derail a conflaguration of con artists and humbugs?

You dumb ass, this is a scientific subject. So present some science, for God's sake. All you present is name calling and innuendo.

Pattycake, you have yet to present a single peice of evidence that shows any fraud on the part of the scientists presenting observations and evidence concerning the rapidly warming climate that we are experiancing.

 

[Old Rocks]

In your entire diatribe, you are unable to identify one piece of falsified data

Data doesn't have to be falsified to be guilty of scientific misconduct. Transparency is a huge part of scientific integrity.

Then present some evidence. You are nothing more than a shill for the 'Conservative' position. You are too afraid of being shown to be totally wrong to come out and say that the scientists are committing fraud, so you just go on with your little mind games of attempting to cast doubt on methods and motives.

You are using precisely the same methods that the tobacco industry used to cast doubt on the findings of the doctors that were observing the effects of smoking on the human body. And it stinks just as bad as the tobacco smoke.

 

[Old Rocks]

No allegations regarding the behavior of scientists can EVER suffice as a refutation of global warming. In order to account for the evidence we have, such behavior would have to amount to a conspiracy among thousands of scientists, and in effect the entire scientific community would have to be corrupt from top to bottom -- an assertion utterly without credibility.

What evidence do we have that man made CO2 has significantly contributed to warming?

Geez, Sis, do we have to go over this again?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics. Real scientists, not internet pretenders.

 

[Old Rocks]

Who said that?

Oh, you did.

These recent emails and the previous ones clearly demonstrate his and others' lack of scientific integrity.

Well if they so clearly demonstrate it then why don't you clearly demonstrate to us?

Didn't you say you expect your PhD in physics soon?

Hmmmm.

Anyway, OK. Witholding of unfavorable results. Manipulation of peer-review. Bias to privilege certain investigational lines and/or results over others. Manipulation of data. Lack of transparency in methods and research. Concealing lack of integrity and results. Censorship. Etc.

I suggest you review this before you defend.


Read this, too: An Insult to All Science

A fucking right wingnut blog. Now that is what Sis regards as evidence. To hell with the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, or any other such pinko commie far left wing scientific society. In fact, according to Sis, to hell with any scientific society anywhere in the world. Far better to get information from dumb assed right wing blogs.

And Sis claims to be a scientist? Absolutely constantly badmouthing all her associates. Her denigration of scientists is a daily fact, something one would expect of trailer trash, not a working scientist.

 

[Si modo]

No allegations regarding the behavior of scientists can EVER suffice as a refutation of global warming. In order to account for the evidence we have, such behavior would have to amount to a conspiracy among thousands of scientists, and in effect the entire scientific community would have to be corrupt from top to bottom -- an assertion utterly without credibility.

What evidence do we have that man made CO2 has significantly contributed to warming?

Geez, Sis, do we have to go over this again?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

From the American Institute of Physics. Real scientists, not internet pretenders.

That does nothing to address what I asked for.

Obviously you don't even know what is being asked.