So if it was peer reviewed how could it be false? This is SCIENCE! The debate is OVER! People will DIE if we don't do something NOW! Only the big corporations who have a vested interest in it not being true would lie about it..... DENIERS!!!! You must be on their payroll!!!!
What? They were lying? oops...
When this study first got published, it worried a lot of parents, who reasonably thought that a peer-reviewed study in The Lancet carried some scientific weight, an assumption we’ve learned since that time was sorely mistaken.
After that report, though, some continued to insist on opposing vaccinations in a movement that began to look a lot more like a religious movement than a rational response to scientific data.
hmmm...
23 comments:
Fraud in science is not new, as scientists are human. However, please note that the consensus in the scientific literature, as published in peer-reviewed journals, is that there is no link between vaccines and autism. The scientific method works.
The system worked? You sound like Janet Napolitano.
In this instance the scientific method failed. Miserably. Children died because of shody science.
It was not peer review that caught this fraud, it was the private drug companies that hired a reporter to do some research. If we had this discussion two years ago, you would have discredited the report as being funded by big Pharma.
Score one for the good guys. Suckit scientists.
the bigger point of course is that we KNOW that the climate scientists are lied. We KNOW that they colluded against legitimate scientists who disagreed with them.
we KNOW that they stand to make millions and redistribute billions if not trillions of dollars to their cause.
and yet certain people continue to follow them without question just because it's the consensus among the scientists who were able to actually get published in peer reviewed publications who of course are also the same people who conveniently we KNOW are lying.
I would think that someone who still believes the CIA teamed up with the mafia and space aliens to kill JFK so he wouldn't marry marilyn monroe or whatever you believe would at least be suspicious that maybe these guys might be less than honest given their agenda
Scientists, even eminent scientists have been guilty of fraud. But your particular conspiracy theory on AGW would require that thousands of scientific papers be conscious frauds. ClimateGate did not prove that. ClimateGate showed that scientists, in private email, are human, even petty at times, but the emails also showed that they sincerely believe, based on their scientific study, that AGW is well-established scientifically. The handful of the tens of thousands of emails cited in your links, some out of context, do not prove what you continually claim they prove, despite your repeated claims, even in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Oh, and on the JFK assassination: I do believe that elements of the CIA and Mafia were involved, but no space aliens. I belive, for example, that David Atlee Phillips of the CIA had some involvement. So, apparently, did his family, at least according to his nephew, who I contacted. Howard Hunt was also involved, at least according to his son, who has a tape of his father admitting it.
So a handful of emails admitting they lie out of tens of thousands isnt good enough for you. Only an unreasonable person would make a statement like that.
One email admitting they lied about climate date is enough for me. A lie is a lie and liars are liars.
actually gary as I've explained before my theory is perfect and here's why.
ALL of the scientists that published their papers in peer reviewed journals got ALL of their numbers from THE EXACT SAME PLACE!
That place just happens to be the place where the liars work. Just like in the story that I linked to where everyone got their info from this one crooked doctor and the CONSENSUS was that these vaccinations were bad for you.
Craziest thing about it is that this doctor who lied had already cleared himself of any wrong doing so I'm not sure what to think?
baaaaa baaaaa baaaa
So Rhino,
Are you saying published scientific articles should not be peer reviewed?
No. I'm saying if there's smoke there's fire.
This nutjob with the vaccinations was under fire from the start. The allegations are not new, but the peer review process failed to expose him.
With AGW the clearinghouse for all the data (east anlia univ) was caught red handed lying about the data AND keeping legitimate scientists from being published in peer reviewed journals. Some of their "work" was exposed as being less than scientific and most certainly very sloppy and of course it's also fucking freezing so you know i'm thinking peer review isn't the end all be all.
It's a scam.
Its like a cheating husband stinking of stripper,lip stick on his collar, and a pocketful of diamond dollars telling his wife to ask his buddies to vouch for him being at the Knicks game.
So does peer review mean that other sceintists verifiied the facts before it was published?
And what happened was that someone else verified that this was an accurate sudy before it was published?
My understanding of the term peer review is a little different.
But anyway you are wrong about the space aliens....it was ELVIS who was taken by them. He didnt actually die he is just on a different planet.
"One email admitting they lied about climate data is enough for me."
OK, show me one then.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
One problem, I think, is that you only read the ClimateGate stories by the deniers. There were numerous other stories putting them in context and reviewing all the emails. You might start here:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
"many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy"
So when you said show you any email where they admit they were lying you actually meant that you don't really care what we show you because you've made up your mind to believe the lies and the explanations for the lies.
That's what I thought.
Going back once again to the fox guarding the henhouse analogy.
As sweet and innocuous a name factcheck.org is, they are part and parcel of the hyper partisan liberal Annenberg Foundation, which as you may recall is where both Obama and infamous Weatherground terrorist Bill Ayers spent some quality time together back in the day.
Back in the day?
There was this girl around way, she liked my homepiece MCA. He said he would not give her play.
When the ClimateGate story broke I read your links and others, on both sides, and looked at a sample of the actual emails. I later read the stories about the various investigations and their conclusions. I did not read the FactCheck story at that time, however a tenuous connection to Bill Ayers does not impress me.
I do not think you know what that word means.
Acting as Chairman (both Ayers and Obama) for The Annenberg Chicago Project is not quite a tenuous connection.
Point is they are an extreme left wing group, and since global warming is a liberal and not an enviromental issue, any propoganda from the Annenberg Group is of no interest to me.
What is of interest to me is the admitted fraud of East Anglia and the gross neglicence of its peers . By just including the medieval warming period and precluding the admitted manipulated data of the discredited hockey stick model the debate is over.
Maybe thats why they now call it "climate change"
Seems tenuous to me. George H. W. Bush knew George deMorenschildt. George deMorenschildt knew Lee Harvey Oswald. Ronald Reagan knew George Bush. Was Bush involved in the Kennedy assassination? Was Reagan? John Wayne was once photographed in the same room with Oswald. Was he involved too? By a few degrees of separation you can connect anyone to anything.
Are you retarded? There are zero degrees of seperation here. They both directly worked for Anneberg. Im not saying Obama is a terrorist because he knew the terrorist Ayers, I am pointing out that the Anneberg Group is a leftist group, and for you link from a leftist site dfending propoganda only proves Rhinos point further.
Post a Comment