Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

[bripat9643]

A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.

Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.

Right?

Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.

Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

The priests of the AGW cult are the ones who published the evidence. Anyone with two eyes can see that they have massaged the data to provide better support for their scheme to loot the taxpayers.

 

[bripat9643]

A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.

Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.

Right?

Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.

Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

You are being dishonest here. You know very well that those journals would never publish them. It's part of the corruption and intimidation that is rampant in the AGW scam.

That's because all the articles are PAL reviewed, not peer reviewed.

 

[Iceweasel]

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

You're sure?
Peer-reviewed papers by climate skeptics

 

[orogenicman]

A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.

Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.

Right?

Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.

Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

You are being dishonest here. You know very well that those journals would never publish them. It's part of the corruption and intimidation that is rampant in the AGW scam.

Yeah, yeah, it's all a big friggin conspiracy (rolls eyes). Just like when McIntyre claimed that CRU refused to provide him with data he requested in numerous FOIAs. When it was finally pointed out that he did, in fact, get that data, he admitted that he had obtained it two years before, and yet was not only claiming for two years that he didn't receive it, has never, even to this day, produced anything of value with this data he so vehemently insisted he had to have, but couldn't get, but actually had all along. So who is being dishonest? The science journals have, in fact, published a number of papers skeptical of global warming (See Roy Spencer). The difference is that those who did publish, actually made the effort to make a scientific argument, even if others later came behind them to refute their claims. If your denier buddies aren't getting published, that's on them, not the publishers.

 

[PredFan]

The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.

Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.

I think those scientists said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and there isn't a shred of evidence that it does. And I doubt the petrochemical industry ever claimed their products are not toxic. That's just outright bullshit.

I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when tobacco companies got a whole bunch of scientists and doctors to claim that there was no link to cancer from cigarettes. That was a long time ago.

It's hilarious to me that he brought that up because I've used that example to counter left wing nut claims that scientists are honest and arent corruptable.

Yes, they may have done that before the evidence became irrefutable sometime in the 60s.

And in 20 years when the sea levels have not risen, the polar bears are not gone, and the temperature is still the same as today, the left will be on to something else to try to oppress people with. It's what they do.

 

[PredFan]

Here are the ways you can tell that we are being scammed:

1. They keep changing the name; Global Warming, Climate Change, now Climate Disruption.
2. The solution is Socialism.
3. "The science is settled" words that scientists never spoke prior to this issue.
4. Scientists who disagree are attacked instead of considered.

 

[orogenicman]

A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.

Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.

Right?

Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.

Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

You are being dishonest here. You know very well that those journals would never publish them. It's part of the corruption and intimidation that is rampant in the AGW scam.

That's because all the articles are PAL reviewed, not peer reviewed.

Right. Let's have diesel mechanics review procedures for heart transplants. No doubt, their reviews will be outstanding.

 

[orogenicman]

The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.

Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.

I think those scientists said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and there isn't a shred of evidence that it does. And I doubt the petrochemical industry ever claimed their products are not toxic. That's just outright bullshit.

I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when tobacco companies got a whole bunch of scientists and doctors to claim that there was no link to cancer from cigarettes. That was a long time ago.

It's hilarious to me that he brought that up because I've used that example to counter left wing nut claims that scientists are honest and arent corruptable.

Yes, they may have done that before the evidence became irrefutable sometime in the 60s.

And in 20 years when the sea levels have not risen, the polar bears are not gone, and the temperature is still the same as today, the left will be on to something else to try to oppress people with. It's what they do.

Bhwhahahahahahahah! You're getting desparate.

 

[orogenicman]

Here are the ways you can tell that we are being scammed:

1. They keep changing the name; Global Warming, Climate Change, now Climate Disruption.
2. The solution is Socialism.
3. "The science is settled" words that scientists never spoke prior to this issue.
4. Scientists who disagree are attacked instead of considered.

Watt is not a scientist. The particular scientist being taken to task in the OP violated conflict of interest and transparency rules, which is an ethical violation that even you people should be ashamed of, but obviously are not.

 

[PredFan]

Here are the ways you can tell that we are being scammed:

1. They keep changing the name; Global Warming, Climate Change, now Climate Disruption.
2. The solution is Socialism.
3. "The science is settled" words that scientists never spoke prior to this issue.
4. Scientists who disagree are attacked instead of considered.

Watt is not a scientist. The particular scientist being taken to task in the OP violated conflict of interest and transparency rules, which is an ethical violation that even you people should be ashamed of, but obviously are not.

It's the hight of hypocrisy for a AGW proponent to accuse anyone of conflict of interest and transparency violations. It's too silly to even contemplate.

 

[orogenicman]

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

You're sure?
Peer-reviewed papers by climate skeptics

Notice the difference between deniers and skeptics. Roy Spencer is a skeptic. At least he has the cahones to publish his work. Watt is not a skeptic. He isn't even a scientist. He is a denier.

 

[orogenicman]

Here are the ways you can tell that we are being scammed:

1. They keep changing the name; Global Warming, Climate Change, now Climate Disruption.
2. The solution is Socialism.
3. "The science is settled" words that scientists never spoke prior to this issue.
4. Scientists who disagree are attacked instead of considered.

Watt is not a scientist. The particular scientist being taken to task in the OP violated conflict of interest and transparency rules, which is an ethical violation that even you people should be ashamed of, but obviously are not.

It's the hight of hypocrisy for a AGW proponent to accuse anyone of conflict of interest and transparency violations. It's too silly to even contrmplate.

What is silly is when one of your own gets caught in ethics violations and then you expect him to be treated differently than anyone else because, well, he is one of your own.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.

Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.

None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.

You are being dishonest here. You know very well that those journals would never publish them. It's part of the corruption and intimidation that is rampant in the AGW scam.

That's because all the articles are PAL reviewed, not peer reviewed.

Right. Let's have diesel mechanics review procedures for heart transplants. No doubt, their reviews will be outstanding.

The Witch Doctors always tell the uninitiated that the stuff he deals with is too obscure for mere mortals to understand.

 

[bripat9643]

Here are the ways you can tell that we are being scammed:

1. They keep changing the name; Global Warming, Climate Change, now Climate Disruption.
2. The solution is Socialism.
3. "The science is settled" words that scientists never spoke prior to this issue.
4. Scientists who disagree are attacked instead of considered.

Watt is not a scientist. The particular scientist being taken to task in the OP violated conflict of interest and transparency rules, which is an ethical violation that even you people should be ashamed of, but obviously are not.

Every member of the AGW priesthood has violated those same rules.

 

[idb]

NASA has already been turned into an arm of the AGW propaganda machine.

I know NOOA is, didn't know NASA was. Maybe the new congress can do some budget reforming.

So has the Pentagon.
Cut their funding I say!

 

[Coyote]

Thread closed for copyright violations - please review the rules. OP's must contain more than just a cut'n'paste - they need to include some original content of your own. In addition - do not post the entire article, post a small to medium section along with a link.