Tim Ball (2010/02/12):
"If people knew just how deep and dark this conspiracy is — yes, conspiracy — they’d be amazed,” he explains. “More and more academics are standing up to refute climate-change theories, but it’s still dangerous to do so. It can mean the end of a career, the targeting of someone by well-organized fanatics.”
Archived Interview
Bill Gray, a climatologist at Colorado State University:
"There's a lot of chicanery involved with pushing this global warming business," he said.
Gray, who has gained fame through his hurricane forecasts, says he has been a skeptic of global warming for two decades.
"We're persona non grata in a lot of circles," he said. "I've been told I'm no longer a credible scientist and I've lost grants ... I've had trouble getting papers published."
http://www.9news.com/news/
article.aspx?storyid=127737
&catid=339
The ice-core man
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
Published: Friday, May 04, 2007
"...Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
Notice that they are promoting religion and sociology.
"The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis...the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/
news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-
4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6
Archived Link To Jaworowski Article:
https://web.archive.org/web/
20081014145159/http://www.nzcpr.
com/guest116.htm
Professor Philip Stott:
“There are many more scientists who think the way I do...But they don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet. They don’t want to lose their jobs.”
Professor Lennart Bengtsson: subjected to "McCarthy" style pressure from other scientists. "I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety."
Marine scientist Peter Ridd is censured for questioning photos used to show coral bleaching. (2016/06/13)
About half of the scientists were on each side of the global warming issue, until nonscientists in journalism and organizations brought the wrong version to the surface and prevented criticism of it. Persons who knew nothing of science were hell bent on controlling the science of the subject. They allowed no criticism which would correct their errors. Getting that much public support allowed incompetent and corrupt scientists to prevail over real scientists.
Part of the reason why that happened is because incompetent and corrupt persons need a disaster to distract from their social responsibilities. They can pretend to be fixers while taking on a disaster which is beyond human control. If it were a simple problem, definable responsibilities would be involved. So it takes an unsolvable disaster to erase real human responsibilities and replace them with fake solutions which can never succeed. Disasters serve that purpose for incompetent corrupters.
Why is there supposed to be a point where something is settled and can't be criticized any further? In the south, racism was settled many times over, before the social justice warriors got involved and wrote some laws on it.
This mentality of science promoting and protecting some cause is the height of fraud. Science cannot promote and protect. It can only acquire evidence through measurement.
There is a difference between producing science and applying science. Producing science must adhere to strict standards that create reliability. Applying science must be totally free and allow truth to evolve through interactions of realities.
Using science to promote causes would be ok if it were at the application level. But the problem with global warming is that the promotion of causes is incorporated into the production of science.
Using science as a power mongering tool is the problem. Supposedly, science is being purified by arbitrating it at the source where it is produced. It can't be arbitrated and be science where it is produced.
There is no danger of producing poor quality science at the source when it is open and accountable. An awful lot of poor quality science gets produced, and it gets ignored, until frauds force it onto society and prevent criticism of it.
The quality of science cannot often be determined at the source, though the standards of science can be. It takes time to evaluate science, while concepts evolve.
Editors and reviewers are supposed to be looking at standards of measurement rather than interpreting the results. |
Marc Morano, Climate Depot. U.S. Senate Minority Report. More than 1000 scientists dissent on global warming and get ostracized.
Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Scientist
Recent Deteriorations in Science:
Vox News Article, July 14, 2016
