Earth Day protesters

[bigdog]

The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day protests in support of "science"

"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."

Is that so?

Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".

Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the arguments they make?

Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made by climate scientist?

Good science invites skepticism even to the point where scientists should be skeptical of their own findings. Skepticism is what differentiates between sound theories and junk science. Skepticism is the hallmark of the scientific approach. But we are told not to be skeptical of the findings and predictions made by the climate scientists. We are not supposed to question them. We are supposed to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken.

[benj]

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.

In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
strictly adhere to in their work:
====
Originality:
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.

Detachment:
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.

Universality:
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.

Skepticism:
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.

Public Accessibility:
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.

Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.

They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.

The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

[Frank]

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

Scientists gotta eat too. They give the boss what he wants. If Uncle
Sugar funds them, they try to please Uncle Sugar.

[benj]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in
cities all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year
"energy tax" that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in
the history of science. It's even more shameful than all that faked
data and mouse painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save
the advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be
examined for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are?
Faking data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political
agenda and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called
"deniers" it is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they
shifted the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea
in science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change.
They say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what
happens, but they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think
"global warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for
many it seems to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers"
fully employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the
planet just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

Scientists gotta eat too. They give the boss what he wants. If Uncle
Sugar funds them, they try to please Uncle Sugar.

Unfortunately WE are supplying the "sugar" that Uncle hands out.

[bigdog]

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in
cities all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year
"energy tax" that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in
the history of science. It's even more shameful than all that faked
data and mouse painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save
the advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be
examined for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are?
Faking data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political
agenda and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called
"deniers" it is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they
shifted the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea
in science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change.
They say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what
happens, but they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think
"global warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for
many it seems to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers"
fully employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the
planet just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

Scientists gotta eat too. They give the boss what he wants. If Uncle
Sugar funds them, they try to please Uncle Sugar.

Unfortunately WE are supplying the "sugar" that Uncle hands out.

The scientific community can't claim the moral high ground as long as they are sucking on the government tit. They have a financial interest in perpetuating climate alarm. No crisis, no funding. Create a crisis, watch the dollars flow in. It's just another form of corporate welfare.

[benj]

Post by bigdog

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth
Day protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both
parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than
address the arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the
predictions made by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists
in cities all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per
year "energy tax" that they can suck on is one of the most
shameful acts in the history of science. It's even more
shameful than all that faked data and mouse painting provided
to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he
termed the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal”
characteristics that science should possess and scientists
should strictly adhere to in their work: ==== Originality: It
is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Detachment: Scientists are supposed to undertake their work
with no motives save the advancement of knowledge. They should
not have a psychological commitment to any given point of view.
And this is advertised by the impersonal style of scientific
communications.
Universality: All claims are given weight on merit alone and
not on the religious, ethnic, social, personal or financial
factors surrounding the individual. In short there are no
privileged sources of scientific information.
Skepticism: No scientific statement is taken on faith. All
claims should be examined for errors and invalid arguments. All
mistakes should be reported at once.
Public Accessibility: All scientific knowledge should be freely
available to everyone. ==== Do you see what a shameful bunch
these dishonest scientists are? Faking data to insure funding.
Spinning papers to support a political agenda and even name
calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it is
clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the
facts. Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the
money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel
use. But then after while the "end of the world" warming
stopped so they shifted the name to "climate change". Well,
oddly if there is ONE idea in science that is "settled" is it
that climate will always change. They say "climate change" so
they can be "right" no matter what happens, but they assume
that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global warming"
when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because
they intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and
then use that money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all
the "warmballers" fully employed with busy work while the REAL
pollution problems of the planet just are ignored. SHAME on
these crooks.

Scientists gotta eat too. They give the boss what he wants. If
Uncle Sugar funds them, they try to please Uncle Sugar.

Unfortunately WE are supplying the "sugar" that Uncle hands out.

The scientific community can't claim the moral high ground as long as
they are sucking on the government tit. They have a financial
interest in perpetuating climate alarm. No crisis, no funding. Create
a crisis, watch the dollars flow in. It's just another form of
corporate welfare.

Don't you have any feelings, Bigdog? If just ONE child is saved from
"climate change" then it's all worth it!

[benj]

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the "coming
ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was going UP
(1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This was
opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical variation to
claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to rise. And it was
especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of climate would tend
to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer than the unenlightened
might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it was abetted by closing
weather stations where temperature readings were low, by installing
thermometers next blacktop and air conditioners and by totally ignoring
the Urban heat island effect as if it did not exist. They have even gone
so far as to "adjust" past temperature data to fudge it upwards. In
other words massive science fraud that was shored up and kept in place
by the threat of loss of government funding if the wrong opinions were
expressed.

But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and so
to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to "climate
change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

[Frank]

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the "coming
ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was going UP
(1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This was
opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical variation to
claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to rise. And it was
especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of climate would tend
to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer than the unenlightened
might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it was abetted by closing
weather stations where temperature readings were low, by installing
thermometers next blacktop and air conditioners and by totally ignoring
the Urban heat island effect as if it did not exist. They have even gone
so far as to "adjust" past temperature data to fudge it upwards. In
other words massive science fraud that was shored up and kept in place
by the threat of loss of government funding if the wrong opinions were
expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and so
to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to "climate
change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

[benj]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

[Frank]

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called
"deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

[benj]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

[Frank]

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

[benj]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like
statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

Of course "global warming" is a classic liberal "tax and spend" scheme.
Too bad that money is planned to be wasted rather than used to solve
real pollution and other problems (Just read proceedings of some of
these climate conferences with all the third world countries already
screaming for their share of the loot. First world money to boost third
world is plan)

Anyway, Science trade organizations are thoroughly sold out at the top.
American Physics Society is prime example. The leadership simply
declares Global Warming to be "settled science' to the IPCC and world as
if they speak for all members. OF course they do not. It's same old
trick of the FOP (Fraternal order of police) Police union leadership
always supporting "gun control" and testifying in legislatures and media
of how "police' support gathering up all citizen guns (termed "getting
them off the street") but they've never once polled their membership to
determine what the actual police views are. It's all a massive fraud and
you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

[Frank]

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like
statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

Of course "global warming" is a classic liberal "tax and spend" scheme.
Too bad that money is planned to be wasted rather than used to solve
real pollution and other problems (Just read proceedings of some of
these climate conferences with all the third world countries already
screaming for their share of the loot. First world money to boost third
world is plan)
Anyway, Science trade organizations are thoroughly sold out at the top.
American Physics Society is prime example. The leadership simply
declares Global Warming to be "settled science' to the IPCC and world as
if they speak for all members. OF course they do not. It's same old
trick of the FOP (Fraternal order of police) Police union leadership
always supporting "gun control" and testifying in legislatures and media
of how "police' support gathering up all citizen guns (termed "getting
them off the street") but they've never once polled their membership to
determine what the actual police views are. It's all a massive fraud and
you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

No surprise there either. Many large organizations are like this, the
American Bar Association from what I saw from sons magazines and AARP.
Doubt NRA will form a position on global warming though.

[de chucka]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal”
characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel
use.
But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for
many it
seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the
"warmballers"
fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

Of course "global warming" is a classic liberal "tax and spend"
scheme. Too bad that money is planned to be wasted rather than used to
solve real pollution and other problems (Just read proceedings of some
of these climate conferences with all the third world countries
already screaming for their share of the loot. First world money to
boost third world is plan)
Anyway, Science trade organizations are thoroughly sold out at the
top. American Physics Society is prime example. The leadership simply
declares Global Warming to be "settled science' to the IPCC and world
as if they speak for all members. OF course they do not. It's same old
trick of the FOP (Fraternal order of police) Police union leadership
always supporting "gun control" and testifying in legislatures and
media of how "police' support gathering up all citizen guns (termed
"getting them off the street") but they've never once polled their
membership to determine what the actual police views are. It's all a
massive fraud and you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

No surprise there either. Many large organizations are like this, the
American Bar Association from what I saw from sons magazines and AARP.
Doubt NRA will form a position on global warming though.

The NRA is one of the groups wanting to ban research

[Steve Rothstein]

Post by de chucka

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the
history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal”
characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be
examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel
use.
But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for
many it
seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the
"warmballers"
fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the
temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

Of course "global warming" is a classic liberal "tax and spend"
scheme. Too bad that money is planned to be wasted rather than used to
solve real pollution and other problems (Just read proceedings of some
of these climate conferences with all the third world countries
already screaming for their share of the loot. First world money to
boost third world is plan)
Anyway, Science trade organizations are thoroughly sold out at the
top. American Physics Society is prime example. The leadership simply
declares Global Warming to be "settled science' to the IPCC and world
as if they speak for all members. OF course they do not. It's same old
trick of the FOP (Fraternal order of police) Police union leadership
always supporting "gun control" and testifying in legislatures and
media of how "police' support gathering up all citizen guns (termed
"getting them off the street") but they've never once polled their
membership to determine what the actual police views are. It's all a
massive fraud and you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

No surprise there either. Many large organizations are like this, the
American Bar Association from what I saw from sons magazines and AARP.
Doubt NRA will form a position on global warming though.

The NRA is one of the groups wanting to ban research

Bull. The NRA supports research into firearms and violence. They do not
support the liberal biased research with foregone conclusions, such as
the CDC saying guns are a health problem and using epidemiological
methods for the research. That is not a valid method of doing
sociological research.

And, to be fair, the NRA has a long history of only tackling one issue -
firearms. They do their very best to be a single issue organization and
generally succeed. I do not always agree with their stance on things,
but I admire their sticking to one area only.

Steve Rothstein

[Wiley E. Coyote]

de chucka <***@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Xsydnai1geRZemLFnZ2dnUU7-***@westnet.com.au:

ssive fraud and you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

Post by de chucka

Post by Frank
No surprise there either. Many large organizations are like this, the
American Bar Association from what I saw from sons magazines and AARP.
Doubt NRA will form a position on global warming though.

The NRA is one of the groups wanting to ban research

My goodness. You are a stupid, stupid man.

[benj]

Post by de chucka

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the
history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal”
characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be
examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel
use.
But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for
many it
seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the
"warmballers"
fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the
temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

Of course "global warming" is a classic liberal "tax and spend"
scheme. Too bad that money is planned to be wasted rather than used to
solve real pollution and other problems (Just read proceedings of some
of these climate conferences with all the third world countries
already screaming for their share of the loot. First world money to
boost third world is plan)
Anyway, Science trade organizations are thoroughly sold out at the
top. American Physics Society is prime example. The leadership simply
declares Global Warming to be "settled science' to the IPCC and world
as if they speak for all members. OF course they do not. It's same old
trick of the FOP (Fraternal order of police) Police union leadership
always supporting "gun control" and testifying in legislatures and
media of how "police' support gathering up all citizen guns (termed
"getting them off the street") but they've never once polled their
membership to determine what the actual police views are. It's all a
massive fraud and you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

No surprise there either. Many large organizations are like this, the
American Bar Association from what I saw from sons magazines and AARP.
Doubt NRA will form a position on global warming though.

The NRA is one of the groups wanting to ban research

Lie. NRA is one of the groups wanting to ban Lib fantasy junk science.

[benj]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal”
characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel
use.
But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for
many it
seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the
"warmballers"
fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking. You ought to read Chemical and
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

Of course "global warming" is a classic liberal "tax and spend"
scheme. Too bad that money is planned to be wasted rather than used to
solve real pollution and other problems (Just read proceedings of some
of these climate conferences with all the third world countries
already screaming for their share of the loot. First world money to
boost third world is plan)
Anyway, Science trade organizations are thoroughly sold out at the
top. American Physics Society is prime example. The leadership simply
declares Global Warming to be "settled science' to the IPCC and world
as if they speak for all members. OF course they do not. It's same old
trick of the FOP (Fraternal order of police) Police union leadership
always supporting "gun control" and testifying in legislatures and
media of how "police' support gathering up all citizen guns (termed
"getting them off the street") but they've never once polled their
membership to determine what the actual police views are. It's all a
massive fraud and you are right it is a typical liberal ploy.

No surprise there either. Many large organizations are like this, the
American Bar Association from what I saw from sons magazines and AARP.
Doubt NRA will form a position on global warming though.

Did form an opinion on Trump, however, and Gorsuch was the result. All
gun owners now no longer have to feel guilty about voting for Trump.
We've been paid back in spades!

[de chucka]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like
statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

I've been through the highest levels of academia and spent most of my
career working in R%D. Unfortunately most are liberal in outlook and it
probably colors their thinking.

OK so you are one of those that you deride and obviously are coloured by
your political thinking
You ought to read Chemical and

Post by Frank
Engineering News from the American Chemical Society which I am a 50 year
emeritus member. It looks like it was written by Gannett News.

[de chucka]

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

Scientists still have public respect except among the luddites

[benj]

Post by de chucka

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like
statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

Scientists still have public respect except among the luddites

Can't last long with all the lies, faked data, mouse painting, and
financial pressure being generated by politicians.

Loading Image...

[de chucka]

Post by benj

Post by de chucka

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like
statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

Scientists still have public respect except among the luddites

Can't last long with all the lies, faked data, mouse painting, and
financial pressure being generated by politicians.
http://www.bokbluster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/091125boklores.jpg

Lots of fucking laughs just because you're in denial of science and
enjoy a circle jerk with your luddite mates doesn't prove anything.

[Scout]

Post by benj

Post by de chucka

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in cities
all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year "energy tax"
that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts in the history of
science. It's even more shameful than all that faked data and mouse
painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal” characteristics
that
science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives
save
the
advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be examined
for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at
once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are? Faking
data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political agenda
and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called "deniers" it
is clear that science is out the window and politics is in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use. But
then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they shifted
the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE idea in
science that is "settled" is it that climate will always change. They
say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter what happens, but
they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always think "global
warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And for many it seems
to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers" fully
employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of the planet
just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ヽ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the
"coming ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was
going UP (1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This
was opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical
variation to claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to
rise. And it was especially clever because the Nile-like
statistics of
climate would tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer
than the unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it
was abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings
were low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air
conditioners and by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as
if it did not exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past
temperature data to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science
fraud that was shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of
government funding if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and
so to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to
"climate change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.

A Trillion dollars taxed out of the economy every year for the left to
spend on their favorites? What's not for them to love?

Post by Frank
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

When you are getting paid by politicians then obviously you have a dog
in the political fight. Only it's against the rules of science to
operate in that mode.

Yes, that bothers me. Scientists normally demand a lot more respect
than say politicians or used car salesman but such behavior will drop
them down to that respect level.

Yup that is EXACTLY what is going on and you'd think that more
scientists would be worried about it than are so far. Once you lose
public respect it's damn hard to get it back.

Scientists still have public respect except among the luddites

Can't last long with all the lies, faked data, mouse painting, and
financial pressure being generated by politicians.
http://www.bokbluster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/091125boklores.jpg

Heck, I sort of lost a lot of mine when they destroyed massive amounts of
raw climate data in favor of saving the 'normalized' data which could be
reconstructed at will from the raw data. The reverse however can't be done.
That raw data is now gone forever. Heck they can never even be certain that
in the future their methods of 'normalization' won't be found to contain
inaccuracies or bias that influence the resulting data to be biased in a
particular manner.

[Wiley E. Coyote]

Post by Frank

Post by benj

Post by benj

Post by bigdog
The following quote is from a story about worldwide Earth Day
protests in support of "science"
"The scientific method was developed to be nonpartisan and
objective," Weinberg said. "It should be embraced by both parties."
Is that so?
Is it scientific to say "The science is settled".
Is it scientific to simply dismiss skeptics rather than address the
arguments they make?
Is it scientific to tell people not to question the predictions made
by climate scientist?

The "Earth Day" demonstrations by greedy dishonest scientists in
cities all over the world to promote a Trillion dollar per year
"energy tax" that they can suck on is one of the most shameful acts
in the history of science. It's even more shameful than all that
faked data and mouse painting provided to the IPCC.
In 1942 science sociologist Robert K. Merton outlined what he termed
the “norms” of science which represent the “ideal”
characteristics that science should possess and scientists should
====
It is suggested that scientific results are always original and
studies that add nothing new are not part of science.
Scientists are supposed to undertake their work with no motives save
the advancement of knowledge. They should not have a psychological
commitment to any given point of view. And this is advertised by the
impersonal style of scientific communications.
All claims are given weight on merit alone and not on the religious,
ethnic, social, personal or financial factors surrounding the
individual. In short there are no privileged sources of
scientific information.
No scientific statement is taken on faith. All claims should be
examined for errors and invalid arguments. All mistakes should be
reported at once.
All scientific knowledge should be freely available to everyone.
====
Do you see what a shameful bunch these dishonest scientists are?
Faking data to insure funding. Spinning papers to support a political
agenda and even name calling! Yes when you see scientists called
"deniers" it is clear that science is out the window and politics is
in.
Like all Lib agendas, Libs control the words to spin the facts.
Scientists chime right in to keep their jobs and the money flowing.
They called it "global warming" supposedly due to fossil fuel use.
But then after while the "end of the world" warming stopped so they
shifted the name to "climate change". Well, oddly if there is ONE
idea in science that is "settled" is it that climate will always
change. They say "climate change" so they can be "right" no matter
what happens, but they assume that stupid John Q. Public will always
think "global warming" when they hear the words "climate change" And
for many it seems to work.
The Climate change fraudsters are especially criminal because they
intend to collect a bunch of money by selling a lie and then use that
money on wasteful irrelevant project to keep all the "warmballers"
fully employed with busy work while the REAL pollution problems of
the planet just are ignored. SHAME on these crooks.

I remember when it was "Global Cooling" and we were all going to
freeze to death. Then it turned into "Global Warming" and were going
to boil to death. I heard "Climate Chaos" somewhere. Of course now
it's "Anthropogenic Climate Change" or "Climate Change" for those
useful idiots who can't handle big words. I propose that it all be
renamed,"Climate Schizophrenia" or "Schizo Climatica". It's the best
description of the "Climate Hysteria" I can come up with.ボ(ヅ)ノ
[8~{} Uncle Climactic Monster

Of course you remember how it all started. Yep first it was the "coming
ice age" Back when temperature was going DOWN while CO2 was going UP
(1940-1970) But then the temperature started going up. This was
opportunity knocking! The idea was to use that statistical variation to
claim that man-made CO2 was causing the temperature to rise. And it was
especially clever because the Nile-like statistics of climate would
tend to cause the variation to keep rising MUCH longer than the
unenlightened might expect. And so they played it BIG. And it was
abetted by closing weather stations where temperature readings were
low, by installing thermometers next blacktop and air conditioners and
by totally ignoring the Urban heat island effect as if it did not
exist. They have even gone so far as to "adjust" past temperature data
to fudge it upwards. In other words massive science fraud that was
shored up and kept in place by the threat of loss of government funding
if the wrong opinions were expressed.
But even Nile-like statistics turn around eventually and they did. All
the hundreds of funded dire warming predictions all proved wrong and so
to save face they changed the chant from "global warming" to "climate
change". Well that ought to cover any situation, right?

The whole issue has become a flag for the left to rally behind to push
big government involvement in all aspects of our lives.
It disturbs me when a few scientists that do not have any dog in the
fight support it, as the science is aptly described in one book I have
as "voodoo science".

Well, the Nazis corrupted science for political goals. So what's happening
now has historic precedent.

Of course there should be a special place in Hell for those that corrupt
science for politics. And a fast track on Earth to get them there. I regard
this as a crine against humanity.