The Fraud of Climate Science

from JoeUser Forums

The IPCC was (is) supposed to be some shining beacon on the hill.  Some altruistic organization that is going to lead us troglodytes out of darkness and into the light of a new world order.  And their bible is the AR4 (soon to be AR5) report on Anthroprogenic Global Warming.  A document so reviewed, researched and double checked that there could not possibly be a problem with it. 

But then the cracks started.  Of course we saw the Glacier gate, then Amazon gate, and then the flood gates opened.  The errors just kept coming and coming.  Until someone, a mere regular person, decided enoug is enough.  A death by a thousand cuts was just too messy.  So they organized a project to check the references in the document.  A total of 18,531.

And the results are in.

Not a mere thousand cuts, they found 5,587 errors of citation!  over 5k instances of false, non-existant, or shoddy citations that did not live up to the self defined standards of the IPCC!

And we are to accept on blind faith (and apparently fraud) alone this hog wash?

The fraud of climate science is that it is neither about climate or science.  Just fraud and who can we fool today.

So next time you see a bleating sheeple talking about melting glaciers and icecaps, ask them if they understand the difference between fraud and truth.  Chances are they will not give you a straight answer.  They do not have one.

13,493 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

My first clue that it's b.s. was that it was brought to the public's attention by a politician instead of a scientist.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

No scientist with any respect for science at all would ever say "the debate is over".

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Infidel, reply 1
My first clue that it's b.s. was that it was brought to the public's attention by a politician instead of a scientist.
End of Infidel's quote

Good point!  Politics and science do not mix, especially when the former is paying the latter for a pre-defined conclusion.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting ParaTed2k, reply 2
No scientist with any respect for science at all would ever say "the debate is over".
End of ParaTed2k's quote

That is why the "scientists" of climatology have no respect.  They are doing everything they can to stunt the scientific process, not enhance it.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

I saw Al Gore on TV recently. Other than the interviewer, he was alone. After he finished, two scientists debated the things he said. I wonder why he wouldn't take questions from them.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Infidel, reply 5
I saw Al Gore on TV recently. Other than the interviewer, he was alone. After he finished, two scientists debated the things he said. I wonder why he wouldn't take questions from them.
End of Infidel's quote

He is the advertising guy for the corporation.  As such, he really is clueless (he just sells, he does not understand how the product works).  He does not take questions because that would blow his veneer of intelligent understanding of the product he is pushing.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

But if Gore is paying the scientists, who is working for whom?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Infidel, reply 7
But if Gore is paying the scientists, who is working for whom?
End of Infidel's quote

Gore is not paying them, the government is.  Gore is trying to sell the product with false advertising, to make a quick killing.  He is promising it will "slice, and dice, and rice and julienne" while in reality it barely cuts a wet noodle.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gore is Big Green's Nick Naylor.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Daiwa, reply 9
Gore is Big Green's Nick Naylor.
End of Daiwa's quote

Nah, Nick was honest.  He never pretended to be anything but a lobbyist.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Point taken.  Gore is anything but.