Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

More fraud in science


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#16 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 03 October 2011 - 12:00 AM

The point here is that, as a consequence of the “Great Global Warming Scam”, the public perception of “science” and “scientists” has changed from one of general trust to one of scepticism and general cynicism. Scientists are now equated to lawyers, politicians and used car salesmen.

This general awakening of public perceptions has great significance to Spookology.

Since the general public is becoming aware that significant areas of “science” are ideologically based and politically driven, this awakening may lead to the recognition that opposition to the formal study of Spookology is a victim of this dogmatism.

Maybe, this will lead to the formal recognition of Spookology as a legitimate area of study. We can only hope.

In the meantime, the dogmatism of “science” is illustrated perfectly by our resident cheerleader who says in his post above:

“There's no research about spookology so that's a strange question. It's my impression of spookology”.

So he clearly and unequivocally asserts that no research has been done on the subject. Yet, despite his own assertion, he has not restrained himself from forming and broadcasting opinions which have no basis whatsoever.

#17 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 05 October 2011 - 06:10 PM

Yet another example of the closed minded scientific dogmatism in action:

http://news.yahoo.co...-183256852.html

#18 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 08:00 PM

For those that still cling to the delusion of integrity in science, here is an extract from a review of the book "The Delinquent Teenager":

A new book reveals the IPCC is actually stuffed with young activists, rather than leading scientists, Reader Michael summarises:

Here are some excerpts from the book The Delinquent Teenager written by Danna Laframboise, a Canadian investigative journalist. The details are priceless and beyond words. This is outrageous.

Her book chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” Other issues she uncovers go as far as to say that approximately 1/3rd of the sources for the IPCC come from magazines, press releases and unpublished scientific papers. It also tables corruption, scandals, and conflicts of interest. The Summary for Policy Makers (i.e. our leaders) is compiled by bureaucrats not scientists and often completed before the articles they actually summarise are made available.

She writes:

Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 - six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts.

or try this for size

Nor is he an isolated case. Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, :clap: lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.

Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 - 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published - Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once - all long before she’d completed her PhD.

One of my favourite passages though is when one of the expert reviewers noticed “in a particular section of the report, the IPCC was basing its arguments on two research papers that hadn’t yet been published. In itself, this should ring alarm bells. Since the wider scientific community had been given no opportunity to scrutinize them, it was surely premature to consider them solid pieces of evidence”.

#19 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 25 October 2011 - 09:20 PM

The expose of "The Great Global Warming Scam" continues in these two streaming video links:

http://www.sunnewsne...o/1236389234001
http://www.sunnewsne...1#1009752923001

Next time one of the cheerleaders for science starts to wave their pom poms, you can direct them to these videos, and point out how thousands of "scientists" world wide have fallen for this scam, and then put their snouts into the trough.

The relevance of all this to Spookology is pretty obvious.

Scientific integrity? An oxymoron.

#20 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 03 November 2011 - 05:24 PM

Yet more scientific fraud, and the benefits of "peer review"..

http://www.nytimes.c...r...&ref=health

#21 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:04 PM

By now, most of you will have become aware of the appalling paedophilia sexual abuse scandal engulfing Penn State U, involving its football coaching staff, and the senior administration of the university.

What you may not be aware of is that many of the people involved in this scandal and cover up are also central players in the whitewash of Michael Mann and the part he has played in “The Great Global Warming Scam”.

You can read more about that here: http://climateaudit....resident-fired/

The common factor in both scandals is money.

In the case of the football team, it is responsible for bringing in millions of dollars a year to the university. Similarly, when Michael Mann falsified his data and colluded with other corrupt “scientists” he opened the floodgates for millions of dollars of grant money to flow into his employer universities.

Accordingly, Penn State made the decision that the flow of dollars was more important than protecting children from sexual abuse, or that science was conducted free from fraud and corruption.

With the success of Mann’s fraud in bringing in the cash, other similarly ethically challenged “scientists” around the world recognised the gravy train this fraud has created, and have jumped on board.

The consequence of this is twofold: first, every living human on earth is now paying the cost of this fraud; secondly, in the public eye, “science” and “scientists” have fallen to their lowest level of esteem in history. And they are still sinking.

With the exposure of the general corruption of science, and the total amoral ethics demonstrated by its overseers at Penn State, the general public can reasonably ask what else have “scientists” lied about.

How much does it cost to buy a scientist? Can anyone believe anything a scientist says?

As an illustration of how science and scientist are now perceived by the general public, I have extracted verbatim the following post from the link above:

Mr McIntyre, I am a long time Australian browser of your site and a great admirer of your intellect and your tenacity.
At 73 years old and a retired farmer and with just a low level of schooling, I regard myself as an intellectual pygmy compared to yourself and many of the commenters to your blog.
Often I can’t follow the mathematics you present but I very well understand the nuances, ideals and concepts you comment on.
May you long continue in your work and I hope that somewhere, sometime you will be awarded your rightful dues both in a recognition by society of your enormous contribution to the ethics of science and in the way of some tangible financial reward.
I posted the following on another climate science site here in Australia and will understand if you do not accept and wish to delete this post below.
“My slant on science at the moment is that scientists are just ordinary human beings with all the perversity and faults of all of the rest of the citizens who make up our society.
And as a science orientated layman I have mixed with numerous scientists for some 40 years now in some of the positions I have held.
Scientists have specialised skills but those specialised skills are equally matched by equally skilled people and equal skills of many different types in every other profession.
But science and scientists have been given an extraordinary latitude far, far out weighing that offered to any other profession or sector by our society to basically do what they want and to do it without any real accounting for their deeds, actions or lack of useable results for our society.
Further, society has an unwritten contract with science and scientists that they will advance our society and in return society has agreed to pay them and in most cases pay them well with many sideline lurks and perks supplied in the past without question, an extraordinary concession by society to science that is not available to any other sector of the numerous sectors that make up our society and civilisation.
Now we as a society are, through the medium of the very fast global communication systems, are starting to see the way the latest generations of scientists have come to believe that it is their total and undoubted right to such society supplied perks and privileges rather than seeing those same perks and privileges as very large concessions to their science profession. Scientists now in many disciplines are being seen to be increasingly abusing and manipulating those perks and concessions and even the science in many, many fields.
Instead of an all out drive by scientists of all disciplines to halt these increasingly systematic abuses of the tolerance of the public for science by less than honest and rogue scientists, we instead are seeing a rush to ramparts to protect the privileges that is accorded science and scientists and the whitewashes of these abuses by an increasingly incestuous science establishment.
In the long run this can only create a vale of tears for science as the increased abuse of the privileges by an increasing number of “scientists” that is accorded science by the public and the political process which allows scientists to follow what paths they will without any accounting to society either ethically, sometimes morally, economically and increasingly, legally, is going to destroy if it is not already doing so, the public’s tolerance, acceptance and latitude given to science and those that practice it.”

#22 Cryscat

Cryscat

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Southern Calif.
  • Interests:spirituality, art, design, reading, photography, my family (of course), nature, biology, genetics... I could go on, but I think I will stop here.

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:29 PM

Global Climate Change Fast Facts

Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

The Arctic
Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

Glaciers and snow
Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

Coral Reefs
Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.

Weather
An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms and polar storms, is also attributed in part to climate change.

If anyone pays attention to the news, this should all be obvious.
Don't take life too seriously, no one ever gets out alive.

#23 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 05:29 PM

If anyone pays attention to the news, this should all be obvious.

I suggest that you would be better informed if you used something other than “the news” as your source of information. If you did so, you would find that all of the points you note above are not “obvious”; they are, in fact, contentious issues and the subject of a lot of debate amongst real scientists.

However, the point of these postings is not to debate the finer points of “The Great Global Warming Scam”; it is to draw attention to the fact that over the past couple of years the great edifice of myths surrounding “science” and “scientists” is crumbling; the Emperor of “science” is being shown to have no clothes.

The catalyst for this reappraisal has been the climate scam, and this scam has drawn the attention of the public to what we practicing scientists have known for a long time: that “science” is riddled with dogma, ideology, ambition, corruption, greed, lies and ambition. Furthermore, these shortcomings are not limited to any specific area of science; they are all pervasive in all branches of science.

The importance of the general public recognition of this is that these things all have bearing on the direction of science, and consequently have great influence on what we all come to believe about the world around us.

If a particular body of knowledge is based on lies that were manufactured in order to win research grants, then everything that flows from that is false.

In that what we all believe about the world around us is based largely on what other people have told us, and we take the truth of what we are told as an article of faith, then if what we are told is false then our view of the world is similarly false.

In light of the ongoing cascade of revealed corruption in “science”, it is wise to view any scientific pronouncements through the prism of cynicism. Similarly, it is worth reappraising received knowledge; is what we have been told really true?

This all has great relevance to Spookology. We all know that there is an accumulated body of data that suggests that there is a collection of real phenomena which bear investigation. What we do not know is the meaning of this data; is it real, or is it illusory? If it is real, what does it say about our universe?

At present we do not have the answer to these questions because the ideology and dogmatism of science precludes mainstream study of these data. Therefore, our view of the world in general and these phenomena in particular, has been distorted by ideology, as opposed to scientifically verified fact.

With the exposure of “The Great Global Warming Scam” science is being viewed more critically; the dogmas and ideologies of science are being viewed more critically. The motivations of “scientists” are being critically examined as never before.

So the hope is that enlightenment will come to the world of science, and we may see some serious examination of these unexplained phenomena.

But, if nothing else, at least now the public at large has come to understand some of the shortcomings of science and its practitioners, and view its many pronouncements with a healthy degree of skepticism.

#24 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The cold, scary world of Skepticism

Posted 18 November 2011 - 01:27 PM

So how is "Spookology" defined?

What is a "spook?"

"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha


#25 Cryscat

Cryscat

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Southern Calif.
  • Interests:spirituality, art, design, reading, photography, my family (of course), nature, biology, genetics... I could go on, but I think I will stop here.

Posted 21 November 2011 - 07:14 PM

"I suggest that you would be better informed if you used something other than “the news” as your source of information. If you did so, you would find that all of the points you note above are not “obvious”; they are, in fact, contentious issues and the subject of a lot of debate amongst real scientists"


If you wish to stick your head in the sand and ignore what is going on in the world, well, its your right. What I put down, are facts that have been measured and recorded. I could link to dozens of articles about each one, but I won't waste my time. I have also observed climate change in my own area, so no one can tell me that its not happening. Start watching the weather. Pay attention to it. Climate change is here and the main debate has now moved to how much human activity has contributed to the problem.

If your main objective was to prove that science is full of flawed human beings who can and often do have agendas, then congratulations, you did prove that point. Nothing new about that though. That's always been a problem.

I wonder what "real scientists" are.
Don't take life too seriously, no one ever gets out alive.

#26 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:57 PM

So how is "Spookology" defined?

What is a "spook?"

Spookology: the highly technical term used to describe and encompass the study of all that weird stuff.

What is a “spook”? The question all of us would like answered. I understand a lot of them hang out in Langley, VA.

They may be related to Zombies; however, we are still waiting for the definitive research on that.



"I suggest that you would be better informed if you used something other than “the news” as your source of information. If you did so, you would find that all of the points you note above are not “obvious”; they are, in fact, contentious issues and the subject of a lot of debate amongst real scientists"


If you wish to stick your head in the sand and ignore what is going on in the world, well, its your right. What I put down, are facts that have been measured and recorded. I could link to dozens of articles about each one, but I won't waste my time. I have also observed climate change in my own area, so no one can tell me that its not happening. Start watching the weather. Pay attention to it. Climate change is here and the main debate has now moved to how much human activity has contributed to the problem.

If your main objective was to prove that science is full of flawed human beings who can and often do have agendas, then congratulations, you did prove that point. Nothing new about that though. That's always been a problem.

I wonder what "real scientists" are.


A “real scientist” is one that informs himself about the subject matter at hand, collects data, objectively reviews that data, forms a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis in light of empirical evidence, and forms conclusions free from any emotional, political or financial prejudice.

Had you followed the noted process, you would be aware of the fact that the historical, and scientific, facts are the exact reverse of what you evidently believe to be the case; and it is a crucial, very important, reversal.

Had you properly informed yourself, you would also know the political and scientific differences between “global warming”, “climate change” and “climate disruption”.

The entire climate issue arose when a group of individuals masquerading as scientists advanced the fraudulent proposition that human activity, specifically human generated carbon dioxide, is responsible for an unprecedented warming of the earth; ie: they created the “Great Global Warming Scam”.

However, real scientists showed that: the warming of the planet is not unprecedented; that warming and cooling of the planet occur periodically as a result of natural processes; that we are in fact emerging from a mini ice age; and that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lag warming by considerable time periods.

It is clear to anyone brighter than a deceased garden slug that “climate change” has been a normal and continuing process since the planet first formed. This is not new, nor is it a crisis.

When presented with the facts by real scientists, the fraudsters morphed the issue from “global warming” into “climate change”; and, more recently, are now morphing the issue again into “climate disruption”.

Note that the fraudsters are presenting a moving target; it moves every time the objective evidence destroys their position. This is a deliberate tactic which ensures the continued flow of grant money.

In this respect we cannot excuse the “flawed human beings” of science. These are the over educated pretend scientists who have willingly ignored the scientific process and enthusiastically joined into this scam. Follow the money...

We can understand the weakness of the blindly uninformed; but we cannot forgive the criminal fraudsters who have betrayed their position of trust for their own personal financial gain, and have inflicted this horrendously damaging debacle onto a trusting and unsuspecting humanity.

#27 Cryscat

Cryscat

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Southern Calif.
  • Interests:spirituality, art, design, reading, photography, my family (of course), nature, biology, genetics... I could go on, but I think I will stop here.

Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:58 PM

Global warming aka climate change is a reality, I have seen it with my own eyes, measured it in my local climate and taken notes from various relatives on what they see in their areas. Personal research. I can't convince you to get your head out of the sand and see it and measure it for yourself and you can't convince me that it is not happening, so lets call it a draw.
Don't take life too seriously, no one ever gets out alive.

#28 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 28 November 2011 - 02:05 AM

Extreme climatic change is a reality and a fact. It is not only about warming, but also cooling. Perhaps this is caused by the solar alignments, solar flares etc etc, but also we can never deny the fact that humans have been looting the nature and resources at a rate faster than it could be replenished.
Posted Image

#29 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 29 November 2011 - 09:31 PM

Global warming aka climate change is a reality, I have seen it with my own eyes, measured it in my local climate and taken notes from various relatives on what they see in their areas. Personal research. I can't convince you to get your head out of the sand and see it and measure it for yourself and you can't convince me that it is not happening, so lets call it a draw.

Your highly emotional, and ill-informed, response serves perfectly to illustrate my point: that most people form their positions on issues based on emotion and preconceived beliefs, as opposed to the science.

Furthermore, once they have adopted a belief, they hear what they want to hear, and disregard anything that may challenge their belief.

In this case, you have blindly responded emotionally without grasping the fact that in relation to “climate change” I agree with you, and have explicitly spelled this out in my previous post.

Also, despite the fact that I have spelled it out for you, you still do not grasp either the issues, or the science.

As a case in point, you still fail to grasp a critical point: “global warming” is not “aka climate change”; they are two separate and distinct issues.

Your emotional response is illustrative of the point I have made repeatedly in the past: that “scientists” are not different from other people: they will form a belief, and grasp any straw to hold onto that belief; regardless of any contrary evidence or argument.

In the case of “The Great Global Warming Scam”, they will resort to criminal fraud to protect their position.

This is significant in the context of Spookology, and was perfectly illustrated by an earlier response by one of our resident cheerleaders for science who admitted that he is unaware of any research having been done on the subject, but that has not prevented him from forming an opinion on the subject; and widely broadcasting that opinion.

So, regardless of whether we are talking about the oxymoron “climate science”, or about Spookology, people believe because they believe, and that’s why they believe what they believe.

If there is money involved, as in the "Great Global Warming Scam", they will believe even more strongly.

#30 Cryscat

Cryscat

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Southern Calif.
  • Interests:spirituality, art, design, reading, photography, my family (of course), nature, biology, genetics... I could go on, but I think I will stop here.

Posted 30 November 2011 - 05:55 PM

"In this case, you have blindly responded emotionally without grasping the fact that in relation to “climate change I agree with you, and have explicitly spelled this out in my previous post. "

Did not read that anywhere in your prior posts. You came across as a climate change denier

If that was an emotional response you would not like to see me when I really am. That was not supposed to be read as "blindly emotional," so please stop reading it that way ( I was actually in a sarcastic frame of mind). I still say its a draw.

Edited by Cryscat, 30 November 2011 - 05:57 PM.

Don't take life too seriously, no one ever gets out alive.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users