34 Replies to “Climategate”

  3. Pity the scammers were in such a big hurry to get to one world government rule and access to huge tax
    revenues they couldn’t be discrete. When Enron laid the foundations for the hoax, everyone involved
    expected huge payoffs and lots of patience would be needed along the way.
    .

  5. Of course it’s “somewhat likely” that some scientists have falsified data. What kind of question is that? Only an idiot would answer “no”, regardless of what line of research is being discussed.

  6. Not so, Alex. It happens particularly in those lines of research which have direct social and political implications. You don’t find this happening in mathematics, physics and chemistry. You do find it in highly specialized fields. Cancer research has been riddled with it over the decades. Life sciences, particularly epidemiology, have lots of it as well.
    As for the so-called social sciences, well, ’nuff said about them.

  7. Where there is money or power to be had, some people will dowhatever they have to in order to get it. Both are available on the ‘global warming’ bandwagon…gore needed a new job because he was tossed from the White House job he felt he was owed and had to do something to prove his relevancy and if it let him destroy the bank accounts and lives of those who didn’t vote for him when they were suposed to, so much the better…suzuki used to be a popular science host who had a bit of minor research parlayed into a TV show and he needed to make himself into an icon again…fragile overblown egos feeding a string of fourth rate researchers who couldn’t get a job in the private sector and saw a chance for government grants beyond their wildest dreams…as long as they came up with some numbers…and it didn’t really matter where the numbers came from as long as they were the ‘right’ ones..not the correct ones, but the ‘right’ ones…pity us all, we paid for it and will go on paying for it for years…

  8. Could be worse . . . all the climate scientologists could have become doctors and there would be millions of dead people.

  9. Those that keep pushing the scam remind me of UFO true believers. See a light in the sky? Must be aliens!
    Sells books, though, and “noted” PhD “reseachers” have painted skeptics with the non-scientific brush.
    It’s becoming absurd.

  10. Cue the virgins’ Fat Albert Suzuker and Strong will personally pitch the virgins in the volcano to please gaia if this makes the 69% smarten up and just believe, rise up rise up believers, you don’t have to take this anymore, people not believing, be like Alex, believe. Throw the whole lot of these SCAM artistrs in the volcano, this SCAM has broken the worlds economy, success for the bastards I guess.

  11. Then again,
    Most everyone here knows what the story is, for the simple reason that they want to know.
    The difference between conservatives and socialists is that conservative has to know as a matter of personal interest, while socialist will follow the leader whatever the leader say.
    The conservatives arrive at their decision by knowledge, the socialists by hurray system.
    The hurray system was developed by communists and is used by the socialists, the so called Democrats in the US and the unions to browbeat those that don’t agree. In the case of unions that use the system in this country it looks like this:
    Union bosses decide on a point that they know is not necessarily in the best interest of the members. They get a designated yeller. The vote goes in as a secret ballot, the yeller will activate and yell, let’s do a show of hand, everyone will vote for as not to stand out regardless of their personal opposition.
    The union members here maybe familiar with the technique.
    And that is why, there is a difference between conservatives and socialists.

  12. “The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009.”
    Big deal. It’s the bottom 28% (or less) who are the hard-core environmentalists and are pushing for changes. The bulk of the population doesn’t do anything. The only encouraging statistic is the 10% increase of skeptics.

  13. Lev that is a very interesting perspective to add to my understanding of why some people jump on board with statists, leftists and benevolent dictator wanabes. There is a group of people in society that are not curious and just want to be led. History says the ruling elite will give them bread and circuses.
    There is a group of people who are naturally curious and questioning. History says the ruling elite will give them a bullet in the back of the neck.

  14. Trollex proves that no matter what the subject, no matter what the evidence, some people will be contrary for the pure sake of being contrary.
    In other news 12% of Americans think Elvis might still be alive, so Algore might still have followers even after the rest of us move on.
    Do you believe in ELLLLLvis, Trollex?

  15. rroe, that is an interesting sequel to Lev’s great comment. Had some family members who transgressed the group think and got the 1 second headach. Your comment also reminds me that Suzuki wants politicians who do not follow his and Gore’s AGW fraud to be jailed. Next would be a bullet in the back of the head?
    It appears that people are slowly waking up the attempt to perpetrate a massive fraud on the world.
    Now if only the BC and Ontario Premiers would stop being complicit in this fraud.

  16. I was away & then my computer crashed so I’m catching up. Checked the end of June & didn’t see it so:
    DID CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSE GREENLAND’S ANCIENT VIKING COLONY TO COLLAPSE?
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620095238.htm
    Of course the writer doesn’t mention how warm it had been and blames the Vikings for not adapting. Adapt?? How? They had no clue as to what was going on. They were iced in. It’s not like they could hop on a plane or call in an ice-breaker.
    Like victims of the Plague should have called a doctor. I wonder if the AGW religious fanatics have ever wondered why Iceland & Greenland are so named & not the other way around, which would, under current conditions, make more sense. I wonder if they wonder at all quite frankly.

  17. “And that is why, there is a difference between conservatives and socialists.”
    Not to mention that the underlying difference is that conservatives have a respect for reality and socialists adore fantasy.
    Here is a current example of how the stupid bovine public actually … In BC we are in the midst of a referendum to decide whether to keep the HST that was imposed on us by former Premier, Gordon Campbell, or go back to the separate GST and PST. Both add up to 12% but the latter requires two separate collection agencies.
    The topic being discussed daily in the media is whether or not the bovines will understand the question.
    YES … means I want to go back to the old systems.
    NO … means I want to continue on with the HST.
    The bovines may not be able to determine which means which. With that in mind, how can anyone believe any poll?
    Here is a poll for you:
    A -Are humans that stupid by nature?
    B – Has our educational industry failed us?
    Here is another:
    A – If there is global warning, is it is caused by human activity?
    B – How can you know for sure?

  18. Abe don’t believe Liberal hype about the “two collection agencies”. The whole consumer taxation branch was outsourced to EDS Advanced Solutions years ago so there is ZERO savings to be had in terms of administering the HST vs the PST. Go read the contract sometime you’ll see. There were no layoffs. Meanwhile your tax bill has gone up. Liberals are Liberals are Liberals. They will raise your taxes to give it to crack heads every day of the week.

  19. A couple of comments to the story, which also relate to your Texas coal post —
    // Oh please. Quoting Rasmussen and it’s TeaBag agenda is like asking Harvey the Rabbit. //
    &
    // Really, this is a SCIENTIST issue, not a ‘American Public’ thing, I want scientist to tell me what THEY think, not some ‘joe-blow’ off the street, so this 69% don’t believe in science really doesn’t amount to a hill o’ beans.
    I know this though, I live around the Texas/Oklahoma/Arkansas area and this is, the HOTTEST summer on record! I’ve read and seen on the news that many towns in Texas and Arizona will be closing down and people moving in the coming 1 to 4 years because they haven’t had more than an inch of rain in the past couple of years. //
    Perhaps it also says something about people who answer phone polls.
    But really, it’s about a relatively successful PR campaign.

  20. As a professional scientist I do believe that some climate research groups have engaged in falsificaition of data.
    Scientific fraud is uncommon, fortunately, but it has a certain odour about it; and a couple of well known groups stink like Hell.
    I do think Environment Canada deserves close scrutiny. But then I am a very skeptical person.
    Even when scientific research is honest that doesn’t mean it is true. Incompetence, bungling, and just plain bad luck are commonplace.

  21. The abortion/breast cancer link is another scientific, political scam. E.g., Outright lies are peddled by such interested (as in hugely biased) parties as radical feminists, whose whole anti-men, anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-child, anti-choice, pro-sexual license agenda is threatened by such a finding.
    The deVeber Institute in Canada (see below) and such researchers as Joel Brind, Professor of Biology and Endocrinology, Baruch College, City University of New York (CUNY), New York, have evidence of a definite link between surgical abortion and the incidence of breast cancer. (I’m no expert, but, in a layman’s nutshell, the breast cells of a pregnant woman get very busy multiplying in order to be ready for lactation. When a pregnancy is abruptly terminated surgically—not by the body, itself, as happens in a spontaneous abortion [miscarriage]—the breast, with all those multiplying cells, is left in a state of “suspended animation”: this doesn’t just resolve like ice cream melting in one’s mouth.)
    At Toronto’s The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research: Research and Scholarship for an Informed Social Response to Human Life Questions: (Begin quote.)
    . . . 6. Abortion and breast cancer
    • Out of 37 studies up to the year 2003 of the link between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer, 23 showed a 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women who experienced induced abortion. [WHAA, 26-8].
    • Since 2003 five studies have been published showing no link between abortion and breast cancer. However, these studies are either underpowered or use a control group with the same risk characteristics as the women who have had induced abortions.
    • The National Cancer Institute denies any link between induced abortion and breast cancer
    • However, the National Cancer Institute has itself sponsored two major studies which discovered a 50% greater risk and 137% greater risk respectively of breast cancer among women who aborted their pregnancy. (Daling et al., Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994; Pike et al., British Journal of Cancer, 1981) [WHAA, 19]
    http://www.deveber.org/summary-womens-health-after-abortion
    (End quote.)
    There just happens to be a letter to the National Post today on this issue by Joel Brind. Among other comments on the junk science of the pro-abortion faction, who couldn’t care less about dead, unborn fetuses—mainly female!—or women’s health: one is the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI). Brind cites the 2003 evidence above, which has been trashed by political feminists (male and female) in their professional guise as physicians and scientists. Brind writes about the NCI’s dismissal of the 2003 findings: “I was one of those [2003 report] [100] experts, but my minority report was only cited by the NCI without disclosing where to find it. (It is posted on bcpinstitute.) My report exposed that panel—organized as a so-called ‘workshop’—as a political sham.”
    So, just like almost every other institution in the West, those connected to science, which actually have a sacred trust to adhere to the scientific method—wherever it may lead, called the truth—have been hijacked by the weasel left.
    When I write, “Kryie eleison”—“Lord, have mercy”—I mean it. With the triumph of what Pope Benedict calls the “dictatorship of relativism”, we are at the mercy of the charlatans and ringmasters of an evil circus that’s spreading like a particularly virulent cancer. The pliant masses have been duly prepared and are proving to be more than willing hosts.
    KYRIE ELEISON!

  22. I won’t quote the Pope when Simon and Garfunkel said it better, ” A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

  23. I hear you, Joe. But I think we’re talking two different, but not at all opposed, things here:
    By all means, don’t quote the pope: there’s no need for you to do that. However, the brilliant S & G are describing the WHAT. This brilliant Pope is describing the WHY: in keeping with the topic here, the why, IMO, that science (and a whole lot of other things) has gone seriously off the rails. Instead of serving truth—or at least the honest pursuit of truth—science all too often serves political correctness and opportunism.
    The “dictatorship of relativism” answers WHY this has happened. With all due respect, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”, while undoubtedly true, does not answer that particular question.

  24. “Not so, Alex. It happens particularly in those lines of research which have direct social and political implications. You don’t find this happening in mathematics, physics and chemistry.”
    lol. No, of course not.
    Your naivety would be cute, if it weren’t so depressing.

  25. Science as a philosophy never was about discerning the Truth. Science as a practice was about finding what worked. Unfortunately the practice of finding what works claimed to be all about discerning the truth. Gullible people fell for it and thus the lab coat brigade became the West’s new priests. After all how can you, a non lab coat wearer, disagree with ‘truth’ as perpetuated by a lab coat wearer when the lab coat wearer points out that lab coat wearers invented the computer.

  26. “Science as a philosophy never was about discerning the Truth. Science as a practice was about finding what worked.”
    This is akin to saying “cooking was never about making things taste good. cooking was about preparing food”.

  28. It’s fun to watch the little pissant quibble while the whole argument disappears, isn’t it? Although, he can still count on those armies outside Berlin to save the day.

  31. Joe, I’m really happy that you think you’re smart. High self-esteem is so rare in kids with your … condition.
    RGB – yes, the word “alleged” means “we don’t want to get sued”. Go look up the cases, numbnuts.

  33. People aren’t buying into their new Mythology.
    The social engineers are trying to force us to believe the World is flat, while we know better.
    They haven’t caught on yet that people don’t trust”experts” anymore, nor need them with the Internet. They can check for themselves now the veracity of certain claims or the back ground of those who make them.
    Besides these Pseudo scientists can’t hide their cons away anymore.
    JMO

  34. “They haven’t caught on yet that people don’t trust’experts’ anymore, nor need them with the Internet.”
    And the “most idiotic statement of the month” award goes to …. RD! Congrats: all your hard work has finally paid off.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation