[paul cotter]

In any discipline of science there will always be a small cohort who will bend the data suit their research. What you are talking about is one example of bad science-this does not negate the bulk of observations. If you think the climate is not changing you are out of touch with events. There is still a minority that disagree with anthropogenic cc and I don't by any means totally discount that position but all are agreed that the climate is getting warmer and more stormy.

[Bored chemist]

Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'.

It only seems that way to you.

[Origin]

Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'. So this proves more of cc are working to an agenda.

That is an absurd thing to say and just points to you being a fanatic.

[Kryptid]

Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Non-sequitur. Bees aren't going to make the whole planet warm up (especially since their population  has been in decline. If bees were responsible for global warming, then temperatures should be dropping in step with their population.)

What makes you think only bees do it? what about birds? what about wheat fields swaying and undulating in the wind?
or the millions of other insects?

what about oceans and waves being charged?

[championoftruth (OP)]

In any discipline of science there will always be a small cohort who will bend the data suit their research. What you are talking about is one example of bad science-this does not negate the bulk of observations. If you think the climate is not changing you are out of touch with events. There is still a minority that disagree with anthropogenic cc and I don't by any means totally discount that position but all are agreed that the climate is getting warmer and more stormy.

Small cohort? Its across the board now. 85% of research is fake fraudulent or plagiarized.

Have you not heard of amyloid protein research being fake? wasting billions and decades of time.

or what about the serotonin drug suppressors fraud?

[championoftruth (OP)]

Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.

What do they say?

What is a conspiracy?

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.


the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal:

Is that really hard?

The three men are accused of conspiracy.
[ + to infinitive ] She has been charged with conspiracy to murder.
I think there was a conspiracy to keep me off the committee.


is that really hard to do?

[paul cotter]

There are websites where you are told "everything you have been told is a lie". One of these sites might be more suitable for you. Here we discuss science backed by observation.

[championoftruth (OP)]

There are websites where you are told "everything you have been told is a lie". One of these sites might be more suitable for you. Here we discuss science backed by observation.

Observation? you failed in taking into account electric fields by bees at least so your observations are incomplete and your conclusions wrong.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Dishonesty seems to be rule in CC 'science'. So this proves more of cc are working to an agenda.

That is an absurd thing to say and just points to you being a fanatic.

If I were to tell you that the moon was made out of cheese, would you believe that? Of course not. But now, if I tell you it's made out of sand....

You: Maybe.

Me: If I tell you I know for sure?

You: Then I would believe you.

Me: So you know that the moon is made out of sand. -

You: Yes.

Me: But it isn't.

You:  i only said I knew because you said you knew.

Me: I lied.

Me: Knowledge isn't truth. It's just mindless agreement. You agree with me. I agree with someone else. We all have knowledge. We haven't come any closer to the truth of the moon.

You can never understand anything by agreeing... by making definitions. Only by turning over the possibilities. That's called thinking. If I say I know, I stop thinking. As long as I keep thinking, I come to understand. That way, I might approach some truth.

You: That's the best conversation you ever had.

Me: Is it over?

You: You think it had better be.

[Origin]

If I were to tell you that the moon was made out of cheese, would you believe that? Of course not. But now, if I tell you it's made out of sand....

Likewise, if you told me that the scientists in an entire branch of science got together and collective decided to lie about their research to hurt the world economy; I would think you were lying or maybe just completely nutz....

[Kryptid]

Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.

What do they say?

What is a conspiracy?

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.


the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal:

Is that really hard?

The three men are accused of conspiracy.
[ + to infinitive ] She has been charged with conspiracy to murder.
I think there was a conspiracy to keep me off the committee.


is that really hard to do?

Your misrepresentation of e-mails and scientific research does not constitute evidence for a global conspiracy to falsify climate change data. Desist with this. If you ignore this warning, this thread will be locked. If you continue with it after the thread is locked, you will be banned.

[alancalverd]

Likewise, if you told me that the scientists in an entire branch of science got together and collective decided to lie about their research

Sadly, it wouldn't be a first. I've just been listening to stories of denial and disinformation around the British nuclear weapons test sites in Australia, and one mustn't forget the 100 Nazi professors who signed a letter condemning Einstein's absurd ideas of relativity. Did anyone challenge Lysenko? Or Mengele?

Being intellectually superior doesn't make us morally superior or incorruptible. It just gives us a bigger stick to beat our competitors. And for as long as we have families to feed, it's better to be on the bandwaggon than to point out that it is going the wrong way.  Vita brevis.

Fortunately the current consensus on climate change is not directly harmful and there is anyway an underlying need to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels. The only people who will suffer from the wrongness of that consensus are doomed anyway, but at least they can die believing that it's someone else's fault.

[Bored chemist]

I've just been listening to stories of denial and disinformation around the British nuclear weapons test sites in Australia, and one mustn't forget the 100 Nazi professors who signed a letter condemning Einstein's absurd ideas of relativity. Did anyone challenge Lysenko? Or Mengele?

That's (some of) the scientists in a particular country.
Not the world.
Those Nazi professors were generally ridiculed by the rest of the world.

[alancalverd]

Not entirely true. You may recall that the Nazis were initially fully supported by the governments of Russia, Italy, Spain and Japan, a significant number of Americans (including Henry Ford) and the King of England. The British nuclear weapons trials only concerned British and Australian scientists and were carried out in secret - you'd hardly expect anyone else to know enough to complain.

Fact is that not all scientists subscribe to the fashionable consensus on climate change. I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a convenient lack of curiosity. Like religion, perhaps.

[Bored chemist]

Fact is that not all scientists subscribe to the fashionable consensus on climate change. I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a convenient lack of curiosity.

Funny how they all agree on essentially everything else. I wonder if there's some other factor.

You may recall that the Nazis were initially fully supported by the governments of Russia, Italy, Spain and Japan, a significant number of Americans (including Henry Ford) and the King of England.

None of which were scientists.

[alancalverd]

Funny how they all agree on essentially everything else.

Now that is interesting. Like politics, favorite food, color of ties? It really does sound like a religion. The scientists I work with disagree about practically everything except experimental results - that's how we make progress!

[alancalverd]

None of which were scientists.

You will still find racists and ultranationalists among scientists, alas.

[Bored chemist]

None of which were scientists.

You will still find racists and ultranationalists among scientists, alas.

True.
But they don't generally gain a lot of traction because they have no actual evidence.
It's not like politics. In politics you can sell an idea with nothing more than a catchy lie written on a bus.

[championoftruth (OP)]

Those e-mails don't say what you claim they do: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate

This is not a conspiracy theory website. This is not a science denialism website. If that is what you are looking for, then you need to head to the AboveTopSecret forums or some other fringe website.

Any comments on this then?

Data shows there’s no climate catastrophe looming – climatologist Dr J Christy debunks the narrative

The bit at from 14 mins was very interesting and not addressed by cc fanatics.

Dr John Christy, distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has been a compelling voice on the other side of the climate change debate for decades. Christy, a self-proclaimed “climate nerd”, developed an unwavering desire to understand weather and climate at the tender age of 10, and remains as devoted to understanding the climate system to this day. By using data sets built from scratch, Christy, with other scientists including NASA scientist Roy Spencer, have been testing the theories generated by climate models to see how well they hold up to reality. Their findings? On average, the latest models for the deep layer of the atmosphere are warming about twice too fast, presenting a deeply flawed and unrealistic representation of the actual climate. In this long-form interview, Christy – who receives no funding from the fossil fuel industry – provides data-substantiated clarity on a host of issues, further refuting the climate crisis narrative.