Global Warming

[NUpolo8]

There were threats of an impending Ice Age throughout the 1970s. We had a series of brutal winters and the Ice Age talk was all the rage.

 

Fun fact!

 

The talk of the next Ice Age were kicked off by.....as you alluded to, a "polar vortex" throughout the Midwest and East. Meanwhile, CA was racked with a severe drought.

 

Kinda like now.

 

Cyclical. To everything there is a season. Time to reap, time to sow. Birds. Blah blah blah.

[TGHusker]

There were threats of an impending Ice Age throughout the 1970s. We had a series of brutal winters and the Ice Age talk was all the rage.

 

Fun fact!

 

The talk of the next Ice Age were kicked off by.....as you alluded to, a "polar vortex" throughout the Midwest and East. Meanwhile, CA was racked with a severe drought.

 

Kinda like now.

 

Cyclical. To everything there is a season. Time to reap, time to sow. Birds. Blah blah blah.

Ecclesiastics chapter 3 actually

[Junior]

https://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085

 

In February 2013, the journal Frontiers in Psychologypublished a peer-reviewed paper which found that people who reject climate science are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Predictably enough, those people didn’t like it.

 

The paper, which I helped to peer-review, is called “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”. In it, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues survey and analyse the outcry generated on climate skeptic blogs to their earlier work on climate denial.

...

A lengthy investigation ensued, which eventually found the paper to be scientifically and ethically sound. Yet on March 21 this year, Frontiers retracted the paper because of the legal threats.

 

The episode offers some of the clearest evidence yet that threats of libel lawsuits have a chilling effect on scientific research.

[tschu]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

[carlfense]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

You know that's the only thing keeping this climate change-hoax house of cards from collapsing, right? You can't disagree with the scientific consensus because of the pencil pushing, pocket protector wearing, mafia.

[BigRedBuster]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

 

Not saying it didn't happen. But, I'm shocked that scientists that believe they have all their facts correct are afraid of a law suit.

[StPaulHusker]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

 

Not saying it didn't happen. But, I'm shocked that scientists that believe they have all their facts correct are afraid of a law suit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. It matters if you can afford the litigation.

[BigRedBuster]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

 

Not saying it didn't happen. But, I'm shocked that scientists that believe they have all their facts correct are afraid of a law suit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. It matters if you can afford the litigation.

 

There have been some major research studies done that have pissed off some pretty deep pocket people and the scientists didn't back down. I'm just surprised they did in this situation.

[EbylHusker]

Not saying it didn't happen. But, I'm shocked that scientists that believe they have all their facts correct are afraid of a law suit.

Money talks in lawsuits, not whether you are right or wrong. A good piece of advice is that if you are not wealthy, avoid the legal system at all costs.

[zoogs]

The scientists didn't withdraw the paper. The publication did. And since when was a court of law the place where good science is determined?

 

This is a case of a journal that backed away from a fight for which it didn't have the stomach or (likely) financial resources. Ideologically motivated money bullying to suppress reality-motivated research.

[EbylHusker]

The scientists didn't withdraw the paper. The publication did. And since when was a court of law the place where good science is determined?

 

This is a case of a journal that backed away from a fight for which it didn't have the stomach or (likely) financial resources. Ideologically motivated money bullying to suppress reality-motivated research.

This is correct.

[StPaulHusker]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

 

Not saying it didn't happen. But, I'm shocked that scientists that believe they have all their facts correct are afraid of a law suit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. It matters if you can afford the litigation.

 

There have been some major research studies done that have pissed off some pretty deep pocket people and the scientists didn't back down. I'm just surprised they did in this situation.

Of course. I just meant that people just love to sue other people regardless of the merits of a case.

[BigRedBuster]

Withdrawing peer-reviewed and accepted studies due to threats of lawsuits. Just what science needs!

 

Not saying it didn't happen. But, I'm shocked that scientists that believe they have all their facts correct are afraid of a law suit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. It matters if you can afford the litigation.

 

There have been some major research studies done that have pissed off some pretty deep pocket people and the scientists didn't back down. I'm just surprised they did in this situation.

Of course. I just meant that people just love to sue other people regardless of the merits of a case.

 

 

Oh...I agree with that.

[EbylHusker]

You have to keep in mind what kind of journal that is. Look it up, it's not one that's going to have a lot of funds. The fallout with the journal has already begun, too, with editors resigning over the publisher's decision to yank the paper. The journal has essentially shot itself in the foot and destroyed any academic credibility it had gained.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

 

 

But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.