Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

Yup, got it....Climategate doesn't prove anything it makes the data "more accurate" so I'll just be here waiting for the "more accurate" data to come back which will be different the next year, the year after, the next 10 years after, it's a constant moving of the goalposts....and that's science, that's unaltered and 100% good to go for consumption by politicians who write the laws and the media who do their damnedest to incite fear.

Climategate was yet more propaganda. How is it hard to understand that technological advances can improve the quality of observed data? Have you ever had a CAT scan? Maybe a PET scan? Both are technological advances that allow for collection of data that is more precise than the old method of "cut open the skull and root around to see what we find" method.

I don't see you blathering about those and how they are a vast left-wing conspiracy created by scientists to increase the profits of medical corporations. I guess you haven't heard that one yet.

But I question it and I'm bad for doing so. I'm just saying if a scientist can be bought out by a corporation (which you imply that they can be) then perhaps a scientist or two could be bought by the government as well....or are government scientists always on the up and up?

Now here is where you misunderstand. The WHOLE FREAKING POINT of science is to question. It is *not* bad for doing so - it is essential. But the question should be asked, and then you should try to collect evidence and interpret your findings. You know, the whole scientific method? Did you ever learn that? This is what the scientific community is doing in pursuit of better understanding of what is going on.

Of course a scientist or two can be bought by the government. But to claim that the vast majority of scientists - worldwide, no less - are bought out? That's getting pretty close to tinfoil hat territory. And - here's the kicker - even if the scientist is paid for, the science still has to stand up to scrutiny. So yeah, several scientists in the climate science community do seem to be bought and paid for - but it ain't by the government. Any guess which side of this argument they seem to be on?

There's a reason why the vast majority consensus among climate scientists leans one way. Because the science leans that way. It has to be verifiable.

And if other scientists disagree with you then what? Are they dumb or are they just corrupt?

Well, they could be dumb and not corrupt, not dumb and corrupt, not dumb and not corrupt, dumb and corrupt, or possibly some shades of all that.

If a scientist disagrees with me, then it is his or her responsibility to disprove my contention using facts, logic, and solid evidence. Once I see any of that, I am bound to adapt my position based on the evidence, or else I am a pureblinded idiot.

The point that you seem unable to accept is that the science is quite clear about this topic. There is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. Of course there are a few who stand opposed to that consensus, but so far they have been unable to present solid evidence against the position of the majority. If they do, then the consensus will change. That's how science works.

It's also interesting to see how popular many of the climate scientists who stand opposed have become, thanks to people like you. They are raking in the cash from speaking engagements and media appearances - instead of working hard to produce, you know, science, that would back up their position.