11–20 of 20 posts
signed: Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil 'One of these four is not like the others....'
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group. They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally jus…
The issue at hand here is one of trust and integrity. If the scientific community has none, then it is degrading itself to other areas of thought that use fabricated realities to push agendas.
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group. They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally jus…
It doesn't call into question global warming as much as it illustrates the biases and unscrupulous means to which humans will go to propagate a desired opinion of reality. The issue at hand here is one of trust and integrity. If the scientific community has none, then it is degrading itself to other areas of thought that use fabricated realities to push agendas.
This is exactly the sort of sweeping statement that the original comment was referring to. This is character assassination on a grand scale: Taking one aspect of one person's work and using that to cast FUD on all of science.
The "scientific community" doesn't rise or fall on the skill, actions, or integrity of one or two members, just as I have to accept that the "Ph.D.-holding physicist community" contains many people who are total loons, or even downright evil. We don't issue revokable membership cards.
The fact that cold fusion turned out to be a red herring doesn't cast suspicion on all the rest of nuclear physics. There is more than one piece of data in nuclear physics.
EDIT: Really. Five physicists trying to debunk all climate science based on one group's scandal is about as nonsensical as a handful of botanists attacking physics on the basis of string theory. There's just no ideological baggage involved in supporting or denying string theory...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't call into question global warming as much as it illustrates the biases and unscrupulous means to which humans will go to propagate a desired opinion of reality. The issue at hand here is one of trust and integrity. If the scientific community has none, then it is degrading itself to other areas of thought that use fabricated realities to push agendas.
trust and integrity. If the scientific community has none... This is exactly the sort of sweeping statement that the original comment was referring to. This is character assassination on a grand scale: Taking one aspect of one person's work and using that to cast FUD on all of science . The "scientific community" doesn't rise or fall on the skill, actions, or integrity of one or two members, just as I have to accept…
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group. They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally jus…
It should be possible to move on from conspiracy theories and questioning of people's intentions to some kind of fact finding mission.
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group. They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally jus…
To me it looks a lot more like the CDO thing with banking. They compare their data with other people's results and throw out what doesn't look correct without giving a good reason (e.g. tree ring reconstruction after 1960).
The argument from this selected data is that "we all couldn't be wrong"...
Meanwhile the horror videos show of glaciers breaking up (a seasonal process) blaming that on climate change. Yet, no mention is made of the increasing ice in Antarctica since 1980. The few that acknowledges this fact blames it on global warming...
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group. They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally jus…
I find it incredulous that people seem to believe that the entire global warming case rests on the results of a single research group. They just talked about this on NPR and other climate researchers interviewed say this is a sad case of selective quotation and distortion of facts on the part of the critics. In addition, it appears the leak happened months ago but nothing was made public until now, coincidentally jus…
I would like very much to see a summary of the evidence for global warming made which does not use the results of this group. I'd also like to see such an argument made by a known proponent of the theory, since any such summary made by an opponent or neutral party will be attacked as "denial".
Arctic sea ice decrease.
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets speeding up.
Permafrost melting.
Bristlecone pines at altitude growing faster over the past 50 years.
Growing seasons expanding.
Birds migrating earlier or overwintering where they previously migrated.
ExxonMobil. Mm.
What we're seeing is that there is politics in science, like everything else that people do. If a former association with ExxonMobil by one of the signatories casts doubt on the motivations of these scientists, then you have to apply the same standard to scientists who are affiliated with or have taking funding from any so-called "green energy" businesses or social progressive political groups