SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Horrible. I also heard Hwang Woo-Suk's misconduct basically invalidated ALL of stem cell biology.
nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
yesboii
Ishin
That is completely different compared to this situation and you know it.
On the surface of it, it seems like about the same thing. Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about the UEA janx.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Leading scientific figures who fabricated data and were discovered. If there are any other differences, I would appreciate it if you could list them. Also, I don't think the CRU is completely representative of climatology.
4 paragraphs in that article are talking about increased security for University networks and to use more secure networks. Some "Sophos" scientist
Nothing on the subject matter though.
If this is what they are hiding????
No do not secure your networks even further!
Mise
isle of lucy
Holy crap hacked emails falsify the overwhelming body of scientific evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Indeed. Also, Darwin recanted on his deathbed. Therefore, evolution is false. QED.
Anonymoose
KING OF MEESE
Also, Darwin's son was a human, so evolution is false.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
Bad analogy. I get your point, but that's just spreading the rumor that Darwin recanted, which didn't happen.
Many climatologists really aren't giving scientists a good name at the moment
Climatologists are turning out to be as much Scientists as Chiropractors are Doctors...
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
also, obama is anticrist, bush did 9/11 and yeti's in ur back yard
also, obama is anticrist, bush did 9/11 and yeti's in ur back yard
Anonymoose
KING OF MEESE
Are you cereal? I don't even have a back yard. That means the guy that lives in the room behind me is an abominable snow man.
Mise
isle of lucy
BTW, I don't know if anyone actually cares, but these particular scientists' conduct had already been investigated by the US National Academy of Sciences, back in 2006. They found that though there had been no improper conduct, Mann and Jones may have expressed a higher degree of confidence in their conclusions than their evidence would strictly warrant. This was the press release of that investigation, which focuses, as you would expect from a scientific press release, on the scientific evidence and conclusions, rather than the gossip and hearsay that the blogosphere appears to indulge in: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
I don't think it goes that far. Personally, I think that they amount to clear evidence of trying to push an agenda: that the science is being done to try and prove warming and control the spread of information, not as a dispassionate analysis of data to try and disprove a hypothesis.
The most disturbing is the discussions on how to keep secptics out of peer reviewed literature, and how to keep any dissenting views out of the IPCC.
There is a good summary of some of the e-mails here.
Asking people to break the law is against the forum rules.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
It is material that was stolen by a hacker. I would think it is proably illegal to receive it, although I'm not sure.Its copyrighted material?
Interestingly / ironically, I believe that the UK FOIA requires that the Hadley CRU has to release it when asked, and there is evidence in those e-mails that they actively resisted this, which isin of itself, criminal (apparently).
Its copyrighted material?
Violates privacy law, at the least.
Mise
isle of lucy
I honestly fail to see what kind of agenda they're pushing and why on Earth "they" (I assume the governments that fund climate research?) would want to push it. It would be far more politically expedient -- not to mention financially rewarding -- for all concerned to push the exact opposite agenda, to cosy up with oil companies, car makers, mining conglomerates and other big industry players, and produce reams and reams of scientific papers "disproving" the hypothesis.
Actually, the most interesting thing about the emails was what wasn't written. There simply wasn't any evidence of conspiracy, nor any suggestion that evidence was falsified...
I've sent some pretty stern emails from time to time. Anyone reading my correspondence with friends and certain colleagues would probably find a million reasons to suspect me of conspiring against rivals or superiors. And I'm just a junior member of our department. I can only imagine what politicking goes on higher up.
Honest question - do you seriously believe that they kept sceptics out of peer reviewed literature?
Yup, just take a look at all the megachains being colored "Green" overnight and the innovative new environmental taxes.
Environmentalism used to be grassroots, it is a a bad sign if you have the government and business supporting you. We have this government supported Climate Change and the sort of taxes we need to stop it!
I am an enviornmentalist if it comes to cleaning up my house, being clean. You know, old fashioned envornmentalism against pollution that made it hard to breathe.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I notice that this thread is utterly devoid of those who have well defended the global warming agenda around here in the past. Where are they to comment on this?
And I would love to see Al Gore openly proven to be the quack/fraud he really is.
And I would love to see Al Gore openly proven to be the quack/fraud he really is.
