Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research

a reply to: Meee32

That isn't faking data about AGW tho...

That is just linking something that is unrelated.

To paraphrase some meme I saw recently:

97% of the world's scientists create a fake climate change conspiracy to upset a few congressmen, and and a handful of carbon billionaires.


The only entity on the entire planet that resists the climate change data is the Republican party in the USA. Odd, isn't it?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Do you think NOAA and NASA are not doing legitimate research on man's role in changing the climate?

Stories like this do not address the science, yet we get a bunch of ignorant responses on how man made climate change is BS without addressing the actual science.

a reply to: Badgered1

Australian conservatives also reject the data. It is surely a coincidence that they are in bed with the coal industry

a reply to: Badgered1

The only entity on the entire planet that resists the climate change data is the Republican party in the USA

not true.

next.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Why didn't you quote the rest?

Because there's no need to.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You're right about the excuse... but this is actually bigger than I think you realize.

Any research conducted by the University is now under extreme scrutiny. I doubt they'll live this down before the perpetrators die of old age.

Any project funded by the UK is now highly suspect. If they offered me a grant right now, I would likely turn it down. I simply do not wish to be associated with intellectual dishonesty. Most researchers, I would think, feel this way. They want their name to be clean so anything they do find is accepted by the rest of the scientific community.

This does not disprove anything, but it invalidates research, calls more research into question, and generally weakens the arguments of those who point to such research for validation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Badgered1

The only entity on the entire planet that resists the climate change data is the Republican party in the USA. Odd, isn't it?

Are you saying I am not an entity? What am I then?

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

As far as I know (not my department) they are doing good research. They just have not completed that research yet. Study is continuing on getting the models to align with historical data.

I was not aware that NASA or NOAA were connected to this University, nor that they received grants from the UK...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Because the rest goes against your 'point'.

Faked research was not blindly accepted, stolen and research that should not have been linked was.

Which yes is bad and shouldn't be happening, but nothing was faked.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I n t e l l e c t u a l

D i s h o n e s t y

That is enough. Nothing you can say or claim or twist or spin can make that go away. Try to understand.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes I am agreeing that they were intellectually dishonest.

You and the op want to say data was faked when it wasn't.

Stolen, not faked, data was passed off for a grant.

a reply to: Sremmos80

And thats what i said...that agw supporters will use it as excuse. And they/you would be right in this instance.

@Redneck- though i agree on the intelectual dishonesty thing, the question is...will it hurt the agw/cc claims in general ? I seriously doubt...the machine is too powerful.

a reply to: Sremmos80

You may be agreeing, but you are also excusing.

You do realize that any scientific report of consequence is published? It would be extremely simple to check for plagiarism, but it was not done. There was zero oversight, and zero validation on the reports from this University. Why in the world would you think there is validation on other reports? If no one is running a simple check against previously published data, do you think they are verifying the validity of the research, which is more difficult?

Maybe the reports are accurate. But we don't know that. The stolen reports could have been faked. The University could have easy just provided faked reports. If their reports could have been faked so easily, how exactly does that not call into question other reports from other sources?

You are showing blind acceptance based on nothing but blind trust... no validation, no verification, no peer review, no repeatability... just numbers submitted. The reports could have said the sky was green... it would have been accepted, and you would believe it.

I have not claimed the reports contained false data, but your own arguments excusing intellectual dishonesty are the best argument I can imagine that data may be false. After all, if we accept blindly, how do we know?

TheRedneck

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Oh, no... it will not affect the AGW agenda. We see proof of that here. The sad truth is that the Indian Ocean could freeze solid, Palm Springs could be buried under a foot of solid ice, and 50% of the world's population could be lying dead in the streets from sub-freezing temperatures, and people would still cry that carbon dioxide was warming the planet. Even if all the proof was shown to come out of a random number generator.

The corrupt leading the blind...

TheRedneck