Scientists lie?

[Frank]

Who would have thunk it?

[Boron Elgar]

The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of asbestos.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility.

[Frank]

I don't go for the second hand smoke argument either. Everyone knows that toxicity is dose related. And, asbestos won't jump up and bite you, you have to breathe it into your lungs and you also have to smoke to get cancer from it.

[~misfit~]

A bit sensasionalist. I don't think that it's actually 'scientists' who are transposing data incorrectly (sometimes several times according to that article). It seems instead to be the "US government's Global Historical Climate Network" - government - *not* scientists.

[David Hare-Scott]

As well as climate change, passive smoking and asbestos denial Booker is a proven liar with very lax journalistic standards and a creationist to boot. His anti-science crap sells newspapers and books though. Frank no doubt finds him an intellectual hero.

[songbird]

perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around to kick his butt once in a while?

Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing.

songbird

[Frank]

Billy lives on with you guys.

[Boron Elgar]

Non-sequitur, I am afraid.

It isn't an "argument." It is scientific fact. Does one argue about

1+2=2? The existence of hats, perhaps?

Two out of two. Care to go for a trifecta? Tell us what you think about spontaneous generation.

I am not surprised you posted the link you did. I consider the source.

[Boron Elgar]

Amen.

Somehow, I do not think "intellectual" ever enters into it. :)

[T]

Hi Frank,

This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first:

"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives"

Anyone that disagreed with Lysenko simply disappeared. With this scandal, you just get public ridicule and lose your job.

Politics needs to butt out of science.

-T

[T]

Hi Songbird,

There is a lot of evidence out there that Global Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's reference.

Then again, if you truly believe something as an axion, then any evidence to your belief system will just amount to heresy.

Makes discussing Global Warming akin to discussing Religion or Politics. Always turns out bad. Note the fury "some" have when you disagree with them over such things. Makes this not much of a fun subject anymore. Lysenkoism does have to apply.

-T

[Fran Farmer]

Have you heard from Billy? I was just wondering what happened to him a few days ago.

I worked for government for 40 years in one capacity or another and I spent a lot of that time fighting bullshit and propaganda of one sort or another. All governments try to spread it as does every money making commercial enterprise. It goes by the name of 'policy' for government and 'advertising' from commerce.

Before our Public Service took on the politicised form favoured by the US, it was the duty of people such as myself to provide advice "without fear or favour". That meant we were there to protect the interests of the citizens of this country and not there just to serve government whim.

The perpetuation of bullshit, and especially bullshit based on ignorance or self interest, gets right up my left nostril. Climate Change denial is bullshit.

[David Hare-Scott]

No there isn't. There is a lot of propaganda.

The matter is treated as faith in many circles sadly. That is how so many people accept the denialist bumf because they will not look at the evidence but rely on so-called experts who tell them what they want to hear. Neither Booker nor the clown he quoted are any kind of expert but they get a big hearing because their message is palatable.

Lysenkoism is a classic example of politicians (Stalin in this case) commanding that scientists act the way the politician wants to fulfil a certain political objective. The State doesn't do that quite as blatantly now but allows big business to take the lead. Sadly too many politicians meekly follow on and swallow the lies from the fossil fuel industry because it is convenient to their own political leanings, rather than go to the source and ask what does the science really say.

Our grandchildren will wear the consequences. But the current mob in power don't see that as a problem, as to look to the future requires statesmanship, all we get is politics.

[T]

Hi Dave,

Actually, Global Warming comes off like that to me. I have a strong science background as an engineer and all my alarm bell are going off, especially the part about not accepting any dissenting opinion and persecuting those that do. Just look at all the name calling on this group towards those that dissent.

True. Has to do with who waxes whose hand the most. Big business could not get away with this without even bigger government. The two feed off each other. And the public suffers.

Ice core sample have shown that CO2 emission have always occurs "after" a rise in global temperature. Be careful about calling dissenting opinion "lies".

And the Global warming crowd has been caught fudging and out right fabricating in a number of instances. Sea levels are not rising; Pacific atolls are not being covered up; ocean data shows the Earth is cooling slights over the past 10 or so years.

Lysenkoism sound to me exactly like the tactics the Global Warming crowd is using, including the use of extremist religious terms like "Denier". And you lose your government funding and get called all kinds of names. Fortunately you don't disappear, yet.

A lot of this non-sense has to do with never ending government funding to prove a government viewpoint. Another example of this is funding to prove serum cholesterol and arteriosclerosis are somehow related, even though there is no evidence of such in autopsy studies. Look at all the damage the drugs (Statins) are doing to people for absolute nothing. But it will never stop as long as the government funding flows.

True. If you are correct our grandchildren a big mess. If I am correct and the Global Warming crowd gets their way, we/they in for a lot of tyranny.

Nice we can talk about this as gentlemen. Geez there are a lot of sore heads on your side of this issue.

-T

[Fran Farmer]

He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. See his sig. line in this post above and in any of the other posts he has made in the group.

The problem with those who dissent here, which IIRC has only been expressed by you and Frank, is that neither of you have given cites that can withstand any scrutiny to support your claims that climate change is 'bunk'. For example, that newspaper article cited by Frank can be demolished in about 60 seconds flat using the most simple of google searches.

It also surprises me that anyone with any form of science background, even engineering, would dismiss all of the research done on climate change by a large number of climate scientists by using the single word of 'bunk'. That word does not bring to mind scientific rigour coupled with a dispassionate analysis of the scientific evidence.

Cite?

David hasn't. He's used the descriptor of "propaganda".

Cite? And please don't drag up that hoary old mistake that appeared on a page between 400 and 500 of Volume 2 of the IPCC report.

Cite?

Pacific atolls are not

Kiribati and Tuvalu are both Pacific atolls and the residents of those nations and the governments of those nations say they are regularly being covered by sea water as a result of rising sea levels caused by climate change.

Can you provide a cite to support your claim that those nations aren't suffering inundation on a regular basis because of sea rise? And while you are at it, don't restrict yourself to just the Pacific, you could also provide a cite that covers the problem of sea rise for the Maldives.

ocean data shows the Earth is

Cite?

"The global warming crowd"?? Who are these people? Would they be scientists? Or even climate scientists? And would those people actually work and publish in the field of climate science and be subject to peer review?

Oh barf! "Extremist religious terms"!

"Denier" is just like the terms "warmist" and "alarmist" that the deniers dandy about. All of those temrms are the swapping of insults on the old principle of "what goes round, comes round".

It's just like you calling David, Dave, referring to climate scientists who work and publish in the field of their expertise as "the global warming crowd".

Yes, there are indeed some sore heads on this side and your attempt to sucker David by trying to soft soap him as a 'gentleman' doesn't cut it with my sore head.

My head will stay sore until you put up some cites that can withstand some degree of scrutiny and which can't be demolished by a few very simple google searches. In other words, do some analysis, find some reputable science cites as opposed to propaganda and don't put forward junk science cites that even me with my Arts/social sciences background can see through in a short amount of time by comparing it to climate science sites.

[Frank]

Exactly.

Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers.

Frank

[songbird]

no, i've not heard anything from Billy in a long time. i suspect he has gone to the great wild beyond. i hope otherwise.

once you have a tax and spend system in place it is very hard to get rid of it and everything else gets plugged into it for the same reason. it is as close to a self-perpetuating machine that we'll ever see...

it isn't favored by most of us here. my own version would be quite different if i had my way (if i were king :) ).

yeah, and every delay in changing policy builds more compound effects into the system. the skeptics may complain about the costs of making changes but they don't ever seem to notice how much it will cost to move or replace the many trillions of dollars of infrastructure and the lost and damaged land that will come from even more sea level increases.

they are arguing about three peanuts in a truckload not understanding that the truckload is coming down upon their heads (delusional or magical thinking won't stop it).

songbird

[Fran Farmer]

More slurs and insinuations.

Do you have any (even halfway) reputable cites to support your slurs in relation to the cupidity of scientists? And since we've been discussing climate science, I'd be particularly interested to see some cites that can stand up to even a cursory scrutiny on the culpability of climate scientists.

[Frank]

I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot.

[songbird]

Frank wrote: ...

when you posted that story what did you expect to come from it that hasn't already been said?

songbird