Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNY4uKXXL8#t=161

Yuuuuup, but hey let's lower CO2 emissions just because I mean it's not like it would hurt people attempting to heat/cool their homes, people who work in coal mines/for power companies, people who only have a limited budget to spend on energy....because even if Anthropogenic Global Warming is a liberal lie at least we're preparing just in case....and remember Results don't matter...intentions do

[Andre]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNY4uKXXL8#t=161

Yuuuuup, but hey let's lower CO2 emissions just because I mean it's not like it would hurt people attempting to heat/cool their homes, people who work in coal mines/for power companies, people who only have a limited budget to spend on energy....because even if Anthropogenic Global Warming is a liberal lie at least we're preparing just in case....and remember Results don't matter...intentions do

They always did want to tax the air we breathe mate and they couldnt,so they have devised the next best thing tax your emissions.

Government thanking us for the money that comes from our farts ->

[bcollins]

As an scientist, I have to say that the lack of a single link to a peer-reviewed academic journal in this entire thread is pretty indicative of the problem with the relationship between scientists and everyone else.

There is, unquestionably, corruption in research science. That is what makes peer-reviewed publication such a vital component in maintaining the integrity of the scientific community. It's easy to pay off a handful of scientists and almost impossible to buy off a majority. Fortunately, at the end of the day, scientific claims must be supported by convincing evidence. With a lack of such evidence, the community will turn on specious claims like a school of hungry piranha.

While it is nice to have opinions, it is also important to respect expertise. I know a lot about mathematical modeling, but very, very little about climatology. Therefore, I am forced, as a reasonable person, to defer to those who have dedicated decades of study to the topic at hand. If the climatology community says there is sufficient evidence to support the claim of man made climate change, then it is the very definition of hubris for me to think that I have sufficient expertise to gain say them, just on the basis of a few articles posted on the internet.

[bcollins]

Here's a link to an interesting 2010 study outlining a process for determining credibility on the topic, for anyone interested.

Expert credibility in climate change

[El Kabong]

And I'd say the lack of empirical evidence to backup claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change shows that these "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) have an agenda

[Kirkland Laing]

Miami, the great world city, is drowning while the powers that be look away | World news | The Observer

[El Kabong]

Here's a link to an interesting 2010 study outlining a process for determining credibility on the topic, for anyone interested.

Expert credibility in climate change

The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT.

[bcollins]

Here's a link to an interesting 2010 study outlining a process for determining credibility on the topic, for anyone interested.

Expert credibility in climate change

The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT.

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

[El Kabong]

Here's a link to an interesting 2010 study outlining a process for determining credibility on the topic, for anyone interested.

Expert credibility in climate change

The thing is NASA and NOAA got caught fudging the numbers as have other "scientists" ....so what do they have to do to get you to question them? They got caught LYING, FACT.

Fact? Gotta be careful with those. That's the whole point. Even more important is to check your sources.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Again, the experts are experts for a reason. Rather than jumping on every story that shares your belief, the better idea is to keep an open mind and not try to arrive at erroneous conclusions. All scientists do make mistakes, but the community as a whole is just waiting for such high profile mistakes - that's the stuff careers are made of.

They've used COMPUTER MODELS which have....has one been right yet? Anyway they used those computer models rather than the actual data. Sorry, they've been lying and skewing the numbers, and shit if THAT doesn't sway you look at the laws the "green" politicians try to pass to curb CO2 emissions....anything WE (the United States) doesn't put in the atmosphere China, Russia, and India have no problem picking up that slack AND THEN SOME!!!


It's a hoax, a façade, a flimflam, bogus, untrue, etc