Actually, as members and adminstrators of research departments who rely almost completely on government funding...they absolutely share the common agenda of securing funding from political bodies, most of whom refuse to fund anything that could be politically incorrect.

That's kind of the whole point of what came out last month. Then they fall back on Bill Murray's line from Ghostbusters, "Back off man, I'm a scientist."

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like an organized buch of scientists with a common agenda to me.

Another cold record ...

Lake effect snow sets a few records | records, kent, 0in - Top Stories - WWMT NEWSCHANNEL 3

i was quoting you directly "For every scientist that was on board with this there were two that said it was not the case."

and i was asking for a source of that statistic.

I was referring to all scientists. Certainly these scientists were organized, but that does not mean all scientists or even all climate scientists are. I was talking about all scientists because someone tried to use the fact that these scientists messed up to disprove evolution by hinting that they are the same scientists that support evolution. I don’t mind if you don’t trust science when it comes to the current climate debate, but we shouldn’t over react and accuse all scientific work as suspect unless there is evidence, not just conjecture.

I see what you're saying. But it seems like you're so easily dismissing this incident as the act of a few scientists. This is much much bigger than you make it out to be. I agree that his could be casting an unfair shadow of doubt on the whole scientific community.

The big problem is as you point out, we should just judge the evidence. A world wide collusion of scientists to hide dissenting evidence makes this difficult to do.

What is unfortunate -and this applies in many areas- for many, it's difficult not to paint the whole lot with the same brush. It is an aspect of human nature I'm afraid.

Look at what happens in our industry as an example. Sully and Jeff pull a rabbit out of the hat and Pilots are heroes. Then someone augers in and doubt is cast on the profession. Not by all of course, but I would venture to say that each event changes perception. This latest revelation will as well.

It will be interesting to see how it washes out.

Exactly, and that does not mean 2/3 of all scientists.

The source was a journal and it was paper so I cannot remember which for it went into the recycle bin a while ago. The wife has several and to keep them all would quickly fill the house.

Off the cuff solution
 

Let them do as they so wish in regards to cap and trade but with one catch .
Those who are pushing this must sign a paper which would bind them to an agreement that states if this idea turns out to be a fraud then they give up all monies that they have made in pursuit of said ideas and that they also pay for damages in relation and or go to prison for said fraud.
This would keep them HONEST .
MAYBE .

Where do you think the communists went?


Fred

Heyas,

When I was in academia, Every hard core "believer" had some kind of grant on the line.

The people who didn't were labeled "deniers" (the new buzzword, BTW). But they didn't deny it, they just said "well, show me the data, and I'll make my own decision".

Totally unscientific survey with a non-significant population sample... (which is the "scientific" way of saying "I'm not sayin' anything...I'm just sayin'")

Nu