The Destruction of Science

Further to my previous blog about how rogue scientists were manipulating data in order to artificially create the leftist panic that is global warming and climate change, I wanted to explore on both a practical and philosophical level these manipulations cause to legitimate research, science and scientists. These acts consist of taking scientific data and observations (evidence) and manipulating it for purposes of an agenda – any agenda, in this case a leftist agenda.

Burying the results, destroying the evidence, distorting the data, secreting the findings, covering up the proof, presenting only partial findings and suppressing the rest, and slandering anyone who doesn't adhere to the belief system.

It’s all part of the program – and all part of the pattern.

To be clear – I am NOT saying that the scientists did these things to highlight a particular belief system they hold (in violation of all scientific principles), I am saying, and the evidence supports the supposition, that they did it for personal, economic benefit.

Some would say the downside of this bamboozling of weak leaders, inept governments, limp bureaucrats and a lazy public is that in corrupting the fundamental principles of science these lab-coated thugs have created an environment where all of us have to be over-skeptical of real science – even science practiced ethically and correctly. 

If governments were enticed to spend taxpayer money based upon an intentional fraud…that’s not a political act, it’s a conspiracy to commit a crime. It is probably even treasonous in its most liberal definition (small L liberal). And those who act as accessories after the fact are no less guilty.

It is worse than that. The damage is FAR worse than unwarranted skepticism of legitimate science.

Now political and economic entities know that “science” can be bought. Science USED to be considered as the impartial arbitrator in all disputes. Now everyone knows the “ref” can be bought off. Want to impose a tax? Buy off a scientist to support your position. Want to create benefit for one group of people over another? Have a thug-intist invent a data/study to “scientifically” support your position.

Want to exterminate Jews? Have a scientist paid to create a study that purports that their inter-breeding with the general population is dangerous. After all, this position is backed up by a “scientist”. Warm up the ovens.

Again, it’s not about having a hypothesis and finding out that it can’t be verified. It’s about hiding the truth from the public, while taking their money in a scheme to deprive them of the truth that is the evil here.

Slandering anyone who points out the fraud is equally despicable and multiplies the bad intent. 

Birther. Truther. Global Warming Denier. Republican. It's all the same to these folks.

Unless the scientific community is willing to do some major house cleaning and serious introspection, research is fast on its way to becoming nothing but a propaganda tool. And those with the deepest pockets, especially the government and corporations, will determine what science is and what it is not.

It’s not that good scientists are never wrong in the science…that’s how science gets better.

It’s when bad scientists are wrong in the ethics. That’s how science gets destroyed.

Global Warming - A Warm Blanket of BS

Looks like the leaked emails from the scientists in the climate-gate scandal just keep point to one thing - under intense political pressure to come up with bogus reasoning for global warming they got caught red handed writing among each other of the best way to scam the public.....

<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. 

    <3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for a ll our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

       Haimberger: It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all      three plots,  hich I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

      These greenhouse gas bags are quick to point out that the debate is over about global warming, but amongst even themselves, it still rages on. Indeed these propeller heads have NEVER BEEN ABLE TO PROVE:

1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

          This is a simple one folks, and won't take much of your time to build your talking points:


          1. Global warming has not been proven. Scientists are not in agreement.
          2. Short term observations, and actions based from them of  less than 5,000 years make the observer  .             look foolish
          3. Your foolishness wastes time, hurts people, kiss jobs and costs money. Go do it somewhere else.


           Friggin morons.