Climatology fraud, what will be their sentences?

[Si modo]

Sallow, the AGW scientists HAVE ADMITTED, "self admitted" in their emails that they were being fraudulent. That's tantamount to them ADMITTING GLOBAL WARMING NEVER EXISTED!!! These people have committed crimes in excess of even nazi Germany!

They did no such thing. Private exchanges between peers is entirely different then peer reviewed material.

And it's extremely assinine to bring that stuff into the scientific research realm.

The emails demonstrate deliberate scientific misconduct on several levels.

 

[Jarhead]

You wanna scare me, doncha?

Well, I ain't askeered of it. Nope, I ain't askeered of it at all!

(That's cuz Ima silly ol' scientist who knows science when she sees it.)

you're a she?
Wow. I had the picture of a man in my mind when I read your posts.
Not that I have a tendency to picture men...and not that anything is wrong with it if I did...and not that there is anything wrong with saying that there isnt anything wrong with picturing men...
well....anyway.....so tell me....what are you wearing?

PM me, baby, and I'll let you know! (I suspect you'll be disappointed, though. )

I chose my avatar and name to be non-gender specific for a reason. Most assume I am a man. Funny, huh?

Then, of course, there are those who, once they know, somehow seem to think bringing up my gender is relevant. Ask Old Rocks about that. Once he found out, somehow my gender is VERY relevant to him when discussing the climate. (I love it when that happens - shows quite a bit about folks.)

other than women being more rational, more intelligent and more reliable, I see no difference between the genders.
If it werent for my wife, I would be penniless, homeless and hopeless.....but I would have had a great time getting to that point.

 

[westwall]

When the earth has an atmosphere that resembles the planet Venus..will you guys be happy?

Only if I own beach front.

In the mean time work on that one experiment that puts all doubt to rest.

Okay..but you need someone to spot you.

Seal up the garage..and turn on the car. Have the spotter watch you either through a window or on video.

And when you fall asleep..because of lack of oxygen..have the spotter rush in to save your life.

That work?

The more crap you spew into the atmosphere..the less breathable material is going to be left. And..it's helping the climate change at a rapid pace.

A very poor analogy. You die because of carbon MONOXIDE poisoning. CO2 will freely release its bond with your hemoglobin. CO does NOT. Once carbon monoxide has bonded with your blood cell it is dead.

 

[JDzBrain]

...HOWEVER, my feeling is that if AGW were true, then the facts should speak for themselve. There would be no need for decption, coercion, suppression of dissenting evidence and claims, or fraud.

Truer words were never spoken...well, maybe it has been said better by a guy with a real knack for language.

He said it like this, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ---Thomas Jefferson

But the point is the same as yours Pred and just as true today as it was in Mr. Jefferson's!

 

[tinydancer]

The likes of Sallow and other Gore like believers won't be happy until we tax cow farts.

 

[tinydancer]

Now to the OP. You bet that they should not only be charged but sentenced to death and preferably executed with anything fossil fuel related.

 

[tinydancer]

Or given life in prison duct taped to a chair and being forced to listen to a prison guard reading a Delingpole opinion piece or Watts up with that.

Now there would be divine justice.

 

[Si modo]

...HOWEVER, my feeling is that if AGW were true, then the facts should speak for themselve. There would be no need for decption, coercion, suppression of dissenting evidence and claims, or fraud.

Truer words were never spoken...well, maybe it has been said better by a guy with a real knack for language.

He said it like this, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ---Thomas Jefferson

But the point is the same as yours Pred and just as true today as it was in Mr. Jefferson's!

In science, the rhetoric of the science is the emphasis. When other rhetoric has more weight, scientists look harder at the actual science. Well, most scientists.

 

[Jarhead]

...HOWEVER, my feeling is that if AGW were true, then the facts should speak for themselve. There would be no need for decption, coercion, suppression of dissenting evidence and claims, or fraud.

Truer words were never spoken...well, maybe it has been said better by a guy with a real knack for language.

He said it like this, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ---Thomas Jefferson

But the point is the same as yours Pred and just as true today as it was in Mr. Jefferson's!

In science, the rhetoric of the science is the emphasis. When other rhetoric has more weight, scientists look harder at the actual science. Well, most scientists.

Most scientists receive income via government grants.

Now...is one more likely to receive a grant for "climate change research" or for "debunking climate change"?

These scientists are exactly what the OWS are protesting......greedy frauds....willing to decieve the public for personal success.

 

[Si modo]

Truer words were never spoken...well, maybe it has been said better by a guy with a real knack for language.

He said it like this, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ---Thomas Jefferson

But the point is the same as yours Pred and just as true today as it was in Mr. Jefferson's!

In science, the rhetoric of the science is the emphasis. When other rhetoric has more weight, scientists look harder at the actual science. Well, most scientists.

Most scientists receive income via government grants.

Now...is one more likely to receive a grant for "climate change research" or for "debunking climate change"?

These scientists are exactly what the OWS are protesting......greedy frauds....willing to decieve the public for personal success.

Most research scientists - actually, the vast majority of research scientists know that they must remain beyond reproach regarding their scientific integrity. They know THAT is their greatest asset and THAT ensures that when the pet/fad topic getting granted from the government starts to go out of style (as they always do), they can still get grants in other areas.

Yes, we have had a handful of bad apples being exposed over time. (Tobacco, for example. Another is kickbacks from Pharma.) Both situation have been exposed, recognized, admonished, and addressed.

Science and its integrity have survived. Right now, with these bad apples, we are only halfway through the recognized situation.

If you read some of the current email conversations, the wonderful thing you will see is that there are plenty of the named players themselves who are quite concerned about the lack of integrity. That was good for me to see and now I know that truly there are only a handful who completely sold out their scientific integrity.

It is disappointing that those who were privately questioning the lack of integrity did not also do so publicly, but hopefully they have learned.

The entire logic of scientific discovery is by design, non-biased - it's like a 10 Commandments thing. Unfortunately, a few forgot that.

So, I would hope that you can see that this is also a baby/bath water situation.

Here's an interesting read (by a 'girl' scientist, too): An insult to all science - are we beyond reproach?

 

[BOBO]

...was until very recently. This is a serious crime that could also implement government figures as well as U.N. personnel/staff. They best hope Ron Paul does not make POTUS for if he does...

Now to the OP. You bet that they should not only be charged but sentenced to death and preferably executed with anything fossil fuel related.

 

[Jarhead]

In science, the rhetoric of the science is the emphasis. When other rhetoric has more weight, scientists look harder at the actual science. Well, most scientists.

Most scientists receive income via government grants.

Now...is one more likely to receive a grant for "climate change research" or for "debunking climate change"?

These scientists are exactly what the OWS are protesting......greedy frauds....willing to decieve the public for personal success.

Most research scientists - actually, the vast majority of research scientists know that they must remain beyond reproach regarding their scientific integrity. They know THAT is their greatest asset and THAT ensures that when the pet/fad topic getting granted from the government starts to go out of style (as they always do), they can still get grants in other areas.

Yes, we have had a handful of bad apples being exposed over time. (Tobacco, for example. Another is kickbacks from Pharma.) Both situation have been exposed, recognized, admonished, and addressed.

Science and its integrity have survived. Right now, with these bad apples, we are only halfway through the recognized situation.

If you read some of the current email conversations, the wonderful thing you will see is that there are plenty of the named players themselves who are quite concerned about the lack of integrity. That was good for me to see and now I know that truly there are only a handful who completely sold out their scientific integrity.

It is disappointing that those who were privately questioning the lack of integrity did not also do so publicly, but hopefully they have learned.

The entire logic of scientific discovery is by design, non-biased - it's like a 10 Commandments thing. Unfortunately, a few forgot that.

So, I would hope that you can see that this is also a baby/bath water situation.

Here's an interesting read (by a 'girl' scientist, too): An insult to all science

I would have read this post of yours...but knowing your sex gave me reason to pass right over it.

 

[Si modo]

Most scientists receive income via government grants.

Now...is one more likely to receive a grant for "climate change research" or for "debunking climate change"?

These scientists are exactly what the OWS are protesting......greedy frauds....willing to decieve the public for personal success.

Most research scientists - actually, the vast majority of research scientists know that they must remain beyond reproach regarding their scientific integrity. They know THAT is their greatest asset and THAT ensures that when the pet/fad topic getting granted from the government starts to go out of style (as they always do), they can still get grants in other areas.

Yes, we have had a handful of bad apples being exposed over time. (Tobacco, for example. Another is kickbacks from Pharma.) Both situation have been exposed, recognized, admonished, and addressed.

Science and its integrity have survived. Right now, with these bad apples, we are only halfway through the recognized situation.

If you read some of the current email conversations, the wonderful thing you will see is that there are plenty of the named players themselves who are quite concerned about the lack of integrity. That was good for me to see and now I know that truly there are only a handful who completely sold out their scientific integrity.

It is disappointing that those who were privately questioning the lack of integrity did not also do so publicly, but hopefully they have learned.

The entire logic of scientific discovery is by design, non-biased - it's like a 10 Commandments thing. Unfortunately, a few forgot that.

So, I would hope that you can see that this is also a baby/bath water situation.

Here's an interesting read (by a 'girl' scientist, too): An insult to all science

I would have read this post of yours...but knowing your sex gave me reason to pass right over it.

I hope you do read that article. I agree 100% with her on that.

 

[Si modo]

As to the punishment for the few blatant players, I hope that they are shunned by other scientists who do not want to be associated with their work and embarrassment forces them into retirement.

If the law is able to specify monetary damages, I hope it can, too.

 

[JDzBrain]

In science, the rhetoric of the science is the emphasis. When other rhetoric has more weight, scientists look harder at the actual science. Well, most scientists.

I thought Occam was to be the guiding star in such cases. LOL

The problem with this situation is far deeper than a few corrupt researchers. It has been installed into the very culture of science by activist inside government bureaus that regulate and fund these things.

Do a little research and see what you find out about data collection stations. In particular, the codes and standards for construction and locations of those weather data collection stations and WHEN the current standards were adopted. Very telling!

The activism is endemic inside the entities charged with oversight of the collection of the data used to evaluate this stuff.

Doesn't matter how righteous the scientist is if the game is rigged!

Oh...and I forgot to say, these jackwagons won't be punished. They'll be given the Nobel!

 

[Si modo]

In science, the rhetoric of the science is the emphasis. When other rhetoric has more weight, scientists look harder at the actual science. Well, most scientists.

I thought Occam was to be the guiding star in such cases. LOL

The problem with this situation is far deeper than a few corrupt researchers. It has been installed into the very culture of science by activist inside government bureaus that regulate and fund these things.

Do a little research and see what you find out about data collection stations. In particular, the codes and standards for construction and locations of those weather data collection stations and WHEN the current standards were adopted. Very telling!

The activism is endemic inside the entities charged with oversight of the collection of the data used to evaluate this stuff.

Doesn't matter how righteous the scientist is if the game is rigged!

Oh...and I forgot to say, these jackwagons won't be punished. They'll be given the Nobel!

Oh, there is no denying that there IS rampant activism involved in the government granting process, or any granting process.

My point is that the nature of the logic of scientific discovery eliminates that bias as best we know how. It counteracts the motivation of the money - the activism, if you will.

When scientists forget that, then we have a problem. And, some did, and we do.

 

[JDzBrain]

Oh, there is no denying that there IS rampant activism involved in the government granting process, or any granting process.

My point is that the nature of the logic of scientific discovery eliminates that bias as best we know how. It counteracts the motivation of the money - the activism, if you will.

When scientists forget that, then we have a problem. And, some did, and we do.

I understand and agree to a point Si. My major was engineering, but I took upper level chemistry as electives...I know...masochist, but I understand.

My point is that I believe that the culture of activism inside our government is a FAR greater danger to science in particular and the world in general than a small group of NUT JOB scientist.

It's not just global warming. It's embryonic stem cell research...the fact that not a single medical breakthrough has resulted from it, only adult stem cell research. Endangered species...the deformed frogs in Washington state being caused by a complex combination of logging, chemical use and ground water contamination that turned out to ACTUALLY be caused by naturally occurring liver flukes.

TRILLIONS of dollars lost, BILLIONS of lives altered forever and all because of a culture of activism inside the government entities charged with oversight and funding.

As I say, I agree to a point. After all, it is scientist of principle who understand the principle of Occam's razor and accepting dispassionately the results of research who find and expose these abuses. But the fact remains that the so called scientist inside our government who manipulate the system to fit their agenda is a FAR greater threat to science than a few corrupt researchers.

We have to concentrate our efforts on purging the system of that culture if we are going to stop this kind of self destructive abuse. That STARTS with the representatives we elect to appoint, hire and have oversight over the people who run these agencies!

 

[Sallow]

Only if I own beach front.

In the mean time work on that one experiment that puts all doubt to rest.

Okay..but you need someone to spot you.

Seal up the garage..and turn on the car. Have the spotter watch you either through a window or on video.

And when you fall asleep..because of lack of oxygen..have the spotter rush in to save your life.

That work?

The more crap you spew into the atmosphere..the less breathable material is going to be left. And..it's helping the climate change at a rapid pace.

A very poor analogy. You die because of carbon MONOXIDE poisoning. CO2 will freely release its bond with your hemoglobin. CO does NOT. Once carbon monoxide has bonded with your blood cell it is dead.

My model holds up fine. You spew crap into the atmosphere, injurious to conditions that foster life..then that life dies. Simple as that.

And it's a simple concept, too. We live in a finite world..with finite resources. And it's not like you can't have both..industry and a clean environment. Not many "regulations" have killed off industry. Quite the opposite. It brings about innovation and efficiency, something most private concerns are loathe to do on their own. But in the long run..it actually saves money and makes the overall process better.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, there is no denying that there IS rampant activism involved in the government granting process, or any granting process.

My point is that the nature of the logic of scientific discovery eliminates that bias as best we know how. It counteracts the motivation of the money - the activism, if you will.

When scientists forget that, then we have a problem. And, some did, and we do.

I understand and agree to a point Si. My major was engineering, but I took upper level chemistry as electives...I know...masochist, but I understand.

My point is that I believe that the culture of activism inside our government is a FAR greater danger to science in particular and the world in general than a small group of NUT JOB scientist.

It's not just global warming. It's embryonic stem cell research...the fact that not a single medical breakthrough has resulted from it, only adult stem cell research. Endangered species...the deformed frogs in Washington state being caused by a complex combination of logging, chemical use and ground water contamination that turned out to ACTUALLY be caused by naturally occurring liver flukes.

TRILLIONS of dollars lost, BILLIONS of lives altered forever and all because of a culture of activism inside the government entities charged with oversight and funding.

As I say, I agree to a point. After all, it is scientist of principle who understand the principle of Occam's razor and accepting dispassionately the results of research who find and expose these abuses. But the fact remains that the so called scientist inside our government who manipulate the system to fit their agenda is a FAR greater threat to science than a few corrupt researchers.

We have to concentrate our efforts on purging the system of that culture if we are going to stop this kind of self destructive abuse. That STARTS with the representatives we elect to appoint, hire and have oversight over the people who run these agencies!

I understand, and I agree with you, too....to a point as well.

Ideally, yes, there should be no activism in the grants process. However, most of our scientific research (at least in the basic/pure sciences) IS funded by the government. And, the government is always in activism mode.

However, I would never want to see any deemphasis of government funding of research. It is in our nation's best national interests to have a strong science policy, and that includes public funding of the sciences.

It's not perfect - the activism you mentioned is obviously rampant. Then, there is the science, which does have some of a balancing of the bias effect, when done with integrity and there definitely is motivation from the scientific community to do it with integrity.

Not perfect, but I am at a loss for an option that is pragmatically better.

If you are interested in reading about the history of science policy and the analysis of why it is important for the country, I recommend this: Inventing US Science Policy. I think it's an interesting read.

And, if anyone is interested in the fundamental logic/tenets of scientific discovery, I recommend this summary of Popper's piece: Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And, I would never, ever think someone was insane for taking upper level chem classes. (Were you chemical engineering?)

 

[PredFan]

If there is any validity to AGW, the facts should be able to stand up for themselves. there would be no need for pressure tactics, deception, or anything else.