Scientists lie?

[Fran Farmer]

No, you wouldn't see any sense in doing that because you can't. Slurs and insinuations are your game but you don't even make sense when you use them.

You and T have just been ranting on about 'keeping politics out of it' and you even state that lies are used to please bosses. Shame that you throw those comments in without being capable of applying that to your own cite.

YOU posted the link to the Telegraph UK article and one simple google search shows up both the politics behind that article (right wing, conservative and Conservative Party) and the "please the bosses by telling lies" role of the journalist.

YOU show all the signs of being a religious/political zealot. You aren't prepared to investigate your beliefs nor to analyse what you do post or to defend your stance based on evidence.

[T]

Hi Fran,

I referred to "David Hare-Scott" and "Dave" as a sign of familiarity. It was a compliment.

As far as debating you, I have done so in the past. You can find all the cites you want on your own. Then you can assassinate their characters all on your own as well. Call them liars, etc.. Have fun.

My intention when writing "Dave" was to have a fun conversation with someone with a different viewpoint.

-T

[T]

Hi Frank,

You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues. It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics need to butt out of science.

Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism).

-T (A.K.A. Todd)

[T]

Hi Fran,

No "slurs and insinuations". I have seen this too. The perpetrators call it the "Gravy Train". Anyone who rocks the boat catches hell.

Instead of insulting him, why don't you ask him about his experience. Then maybe share some of yours?

-T

[Frank]

Ad hominem attacks are a normal knee jerk response. I noticed it, expected it, and ignored it.

Frank

[Boron Elgar]

Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility.

[T]

"well-known agenda"? "repeated denial of basic scientific facts"? "overall lack of credibility"? And, you wonder why our side thinks your side is a religoun.

By the way, that was Fran's cite, not mine. I didn't even bother to read it as there are tons of evidence of fudging and fabricating on your side. Lysenkoism is well in play.

[Fran Farmer]

And whilst basking in that warm glow, you still failed, as usual, to provide any credible cites.

[Fran Farmer]

That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist".

You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also is not the least bit credible.

[Hypatia Nachshon]

HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE

HB

[Boron Elgar]

Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these days to verify what they see online.

Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable facts online would create in informed citizenry.

Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and snake-oil purveyors.

[Fran Farmer]

It depresses me if I think about it for too long. The Age of Enlightenment might never have happened given what I see of all of dumbing down that goes.

Well there is some great stuff too but the problem is that too many people don't seem capable of differentiating the crap from the superlative (or at least the acceptable).

[Drew Lawson]

It is sometimes easy to assume that the author is fairly representing the referenced work. Listing the reference is almost a bluff.

I got slightly taken by a less loony example of this recently. I caught an article talking about how Forbes magazine had trashed Boehner about some recent events. I had the intended reaction -- "Forbes leans so far to the right that it only tans on one side, and *they* bashed Boehner?"

Then I read the actual Forbes piece. Instead of Forbes staff, it was written by an occasional contributor who is sort of a token liberal. ("Liberal Bashes Boehner" is pretty much a "Dog Bites Man" story.) And the alleged crushing was (to me) pretty mild, and only appeared in the last third of the piece.

But 90+% of the people who read the first article I saw probably believed that something amazing had happened.

The same prediction was made for cable TV, and television in general before that. It may have even been made for radio. Unfortunately, we keep letting human nature in.

[David Hare-Scott]

We are way OT now but just one more titbit before I behave myself.

Some books for those who want to know more:

"Merchants of Doubt" Oreskes & Conway, The lobby for tobacco and against climate change.

"The Republican War of Science" Mooney, When politics controls not just opinions but data.

"This Changes Everything" Klein, The relationship between growth, capitalism and climate denial.

[David Hare-Scott]

[T]

Hi Frank,

Here is a fun read from the non-idealogical (non-religious) side of climate studies.

"The President of Tuvalu continues to claim that his islands are being flooded. Yet the tide-gauge data provide clear indications of stability over the last 30 years (Mörner, 2007ac, 2010b; Murphy, 2007). In Vanuatu, the tide gauge indicates a stable sea level over the last 14 years (Mörner, 2007c)

Great telemetry too

That is only a tiny tid bit of the article. It sounds like Tuvalu has their hand out for money!

-T

Can't wait for Professor Nils-Axel Mörner to be called a known liar by the Lysenkoists, yada, yada, yada . (Then they will discover that -- surprise -- "-T" is actually "Todd!" Duh!!!)

Religion and politics need to butt out of science.

[Boron Elgar]

Mornier's sources reject his claims.

[Frank]

Whether warming, cooling or neither, the science has been highly politicized mainly by those that are government control freaks, i.e. progressives/liberals. Just trying to point out that it is not beyond scientists to cherry pick data or even lie for their own advancement or for their political views. Having worked most of my life in R&D I found the majority of scientists bent to the left as if they had never left the university.

[T]

The cherry picking drives me nuts.

[T]

Seen that myself.

Hi Frank,

There was a study about 20 years ago that set to prove that countries that had low fat diets had less heart disease. He left out all the considerable data on counties where the had high fat diets and low heart disease. He even went so far as to make his test in Crete during Orthodox Lent, when the eat little meat, to prove his point. I don't remember the exact name of the study. We are still suffering from his fraud to this day.

Global Warming has been around for long enough that the models have had time to pan out. They couldn't predict if the sun was to rise tomorrow they are so bad. But, as long as the endless funding continues ...

Which Communist said that they would never try to take our freedom by force again, but rather they would convince us to give it to them willingly? Sounds like he is in full swing.

-T