Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One scientist was suspended for something that is unknown and they're not clear if it has anything to do with his research. For all you know, he would have had sex with his secretary. Did you have problems with the big words in the article? Tin foil hat on a little too tight today?
Do you have data showing that more people are becoming skeptical of the AGW or did you pull that out of your backside? I take it you didn't exactly get A's in high school did you.
Just wow. I'm not even gonna reply to your post since it's riddled with TOS violations. Post reported
Just wow. I'm not even gonna reply to your post since it's riddled with TOS violations. Post reported
Well, you know what they say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by old lawyer's adage
When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.
Have you been reading? It doesn't matter if it is fraud, call it incompetence if you like. Look at his method for extrapolating, its nonsense, unsupported by any statistical means and is simply pulling garbage out of thin air. He even admits to such that his work was sloppy and wasn't any real scientific process of evaluation.
My concern has and always will be their application of the science and this shows us that they are not applying science, but fast tracking support for a conclusion.
As for the peer review, think a moment. What is it for? Why does it exist? It is there as a part of the replication and validation phase of the scientific method. His "peers" are supposed to review his work and evaluate the process to which he achieved his results. That means, they start with his hypothesis and work through the tests, replicating if need.
Notice his comment about peer review, that they didn't have a "problem" with his method, they never even brought it up, which means 1) They never even bothered to check him or 2)They were just as incompetent as he is, or 3) They were not concerned about the validity, only the conclusion and its support.
You can paint it anyway you like, but this is absurd, it isn't simply poor work, it is work that would not even be accepted in a high school science project, yet here he is publishing professional research and having it reviewed by a professional journal to which none of these severely poorly applied methods were even noticed?
Fraud? Idiots? It all comes to the same problem, that research was improperly done and then used to promote a major political movement. Some may suggest fraud, but I think it makes no difference as the entire issue is that the science is severely flawed. Once that is noted, everything after is irrelevant.
I disagree.
My view is that it is critical that we recognize and understand the motives and agenda that drive this and that has penetrated the minds of the masses to such a dangerous level. And that we keep talking about it in an effort to wake as many as we can from the slumber of acquiescence and resignation to group think.
This is a battle for the future of freedom. The mindset that drives this agenda is every bit as dangerous to our future as the threats that compelled us to bomb shelter exercises 50 years ago. A mindset where everything is for "the greater good", the collective, and the individual be damned.
My view is that it is critical that we recognize and understand the motives and agenda that drive this and that has penetrated the minds of the masses to such a dangerous level. And that we keep talking about it in an effort to wake as many as we can from the slumber of acquiescence and resignation to group think.
This is a battle for the future of freedom. The mindset that drives this agenda is every bit as dangerous to our future as the threats that compelled us to bomb shelter exercises 50 years ago. A mindset where everything is for "the greater good", the collective, and the individual be damned.
I didn't mean to imply that the issue of fraud is not serious, just that as it pertains to the issue of "science" and that of the climate science field (more specifically the position of AGW), the rest is irrelevant simply because the very action of such a situation is just as serious in science. Whether they intentionally fudged the numbers or through incompetence did so, it really results to the same damage of their reputation and position in the field as well as an invalidation of their work and conclusions made of such.
No, it's really not. This is the net effect of the Dumbing Down of America, and only one reason why it's targeted and deliberate.
Oil companies make more money than any other corporations in world history, breaking earnings records every year. I understand their motivations. It's their water carriers who puzzle me.
Ah, so one little known scientist out of the thousands doing GW work get's into some sort of *unknown* trouble and it's the oil companies behind it.
Meanwhile, Al Gore (perhaps you've heard of him?) wins award after award for his efforts and thousands of other scientists go about their business.
Basically, every single day people from various professions get in trouble with ethics or criminal type matters. It's just human nature. To point to one guy and try to make strong statements like all GW research is bunk or that the oil companies are framing the guy etc. just shows CLEAR bias and axe grinding.
It's funny to watch people bicker over an incredibly complex topic like climate modeling and try to pin the whole argument on a single variable or two.
I DO 100% agree with your other comments regarding clean air and what not.
I think we can ALL agree that conservation and efficiency are good for our wallets etc. as well regardless of our political or GW views.
Do you have any evidence that fraud was committed during the peer review process or are you just assuming that it was fraud and not, say methodological errors, because you are grossly biased? Or are you suggesting that peer review should be flawless? Because then I've got news for you.
"Peer Review" has been a joke from day one, and still is. The accurate breakdown of "peer review" is "regulated group think". It's a means to inform and control members of the "scientific community" that "you will conform ... and you will not challenge conventional wisdom if you wish to be published". And to scientists and other academia, the difference between being published and not being published is the difference between earnings and accolades and comforts ... or ... marginalization, obscurity and quasi-poverty.
If you conform to conventional wisdom ... and promote the popular agenda, you're a brilliant scientist, based on cheers from your peers ..... but if those peers are the old Catholic Church and the conventional wisdom is Geocentric Earth Theory .... you'd best not be Galileo .... not only will you not be "cheered" ... but you'll spend the rest of your life under house arrest.
Science is just as dogmatic as is any religion, and is even more intolerant. There are "established truths" .... established by "consensus" .... and the "establishment" doesn't look kindly upon heretics, and is overtly hostile to any challenge.
That's the only "scientific method" these frauds embrace ... if your "research" supports "consensus opinion", you're in .... if it doesn't, look out. Methods, accuracy, truthfulness has little to do with science these days .... especially with regard to sacred cows like global warming.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
