Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

One at a time:

Bad science can be worse than no science and we're dealing with bad science.

I agree with the first part. The second part, "we're dealing with bad science," is your opinion, and as you are not an expert in the field, I give no weight to your opinion.

Because the first response (not just yours but everyone has bought into Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change) is to malign and ridicule.

The majority of responses I have seen in academic journals and conference proceedings are not malign and ridicule, but rather disagreement and rebuttal. Again, I think you get this more from news sources from anyone within the scientific community.

Bring up that professors have been caught fudging data and you get attacked.

Your definition of "fudging data" is unclear. Do you mean updating data to reflect newer and more accurate means of collection? If so, then this is a common and vital component of scientific inquiry. For example, compare the means to collect medical data in the eighteenth century to modern means. The technology is better, so the data is now more accurate.

Bring up that NASA & NOAA changed their data to be factual because their computer models were found to be outrageously skewed and you get attacked.

Again, the data was updated due to new collection processes. With new data comes new predictions from the models. The incident to which you refer has been THOROUGHLY debunked by the scientific community. Media outlets still cling to propaganda, yet the facts are now clear. See previous link to punditfact for more info.

Bring up ANY professor, scientist, whoever who disagrees with or is even skeptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change and THEIR character(s) is/are attacked.

It is not the character which is attacked usually, but rather the results and methods used. This is an integral part of scientific research - if someone presents something that is incorrect, it is the job of other researchers to point this out. Some people take it personally, but results stand on their own scientific merit. This is the very heart of peer-reviewed academic research (and the whole point). Results MUST stand up to scrutiny.


Al Gore IS a hypocrite, he flies around in private jets, uses more energy than 99% of the population but it's all good because the man buys "Carbon Offsets" from a company he fucking owns!

No argument there. I agree 100% - Al Gore used scientific information for his own gain. It is good to get the information out there, but his purposes, I believe, were purely political and profit-driven.

Take a good hard look at "Carbon Offsets" and then a good hard look at The Catholic Church selling Indulgences and remind me about the difference between the two!

This has nothing to do with the debate about the validity of climate science and is irrelevant. In fact, I feel that the selling of indulgences is just plain silly at best.

But it's not JUST the hypocrites like Gore I want to bring out into the light it's people who WILL starve in developing countries, people WILL die because they won't have jobs, they won't have money, they won't have food, they won't have drugs, they won't have power, they won't have plumbing....the policies produced by this pseudoscience WILL KILL PEOPLE scores of people!!!

This is a complex issue and dangerous to oversimplify. If the climate changes in a catastrophic manner - note the if, because I can't say for certain - then all these other issues are moot anyway. People will die, for sure. On the other hand, embracing renewable energy sources has the potential to create jobs and economic strength in developing countries. Your classification of "pseudoscience" is again not an expert opinion, so I will (again) do the reasonable thing and listen to the experts rather than media blatherers and politicians, who seem to be the primary source of the misinformation.


Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling | CNS News

Sure CNS is a right leaning news site BUT if you look at Dr. Easterbrook's prediction of temperature vs the IPCC's there's no fucking contest, Dr. Easterbrook got it bang on the money and the IPCC was a FULL DEGREE OFF which is mighty huge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Aha! Finally a reference to someone with the credentials to be an expert in the field. Unfortunately, he is widely regarded as incorrect at best:

Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality

or even potentially duplicitous:

Don Easterbrook’s Academic Dishonesty | Global Warming: Man or Myth?

His own department thinks he is incorrect:

"Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geology Faculty at WWU concur with rigorous, peer-reviewed assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed significantly and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources."


We had 30 years of global COOLING after 1945 when CO2 was being poured into the climate every year.....how does a rapid release of CO2 for 30 years not produce warming UNLESS CO2 HAS NO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

1978-1998 temperatures rose when CO2 was rising....only time it's happened, sorry that is a FACT

In the last 500 years there have been 20 "Warm periods" with about 30 years between each one....it's a cycle. 0 repeat 0 correlation between Anthropogenic release of CO2 and those warm periods.

Again, I defer to the experts to provide me with information here, since I have no expertise. Just a ten minute search of the topic on Google Scholar provides dozens of expert, peer-reviewed studies who contradict your beliefs.

But hey, I guess my take isn't popular, I guess I'll take heat for it but I'm not going to waiver because actual fact speak against it. 1936 was the warmest year of the 20th Century AND was warmer that any time in the 21st century FACT....hottest decade 1930's....FACT....consider how much CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since then and tell me I'm wrong.

No sense in wavering in the face of overwhelming expert opinion, huh? You keep saying fact, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. When you say 1936 was the warmest year of the 20th century, in what sense are you speaking? You have to be much, much more precise if you want to have a serious discussion based on ACTUAL facts. Do you mean absolute temperature? Globally averaged annual mean surface temperature? Again, I think you must have about thirty years more training in the field before you can say FACT, period, like you are an expert. We'll continue this discussion once you have your doctorate and have published several results in respected peer-reviewed journals.