Arrest them all --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Publius Maximus <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Publius Maximus <[email protected]> > Subject: [OT] Greatest Scandal in Modern Science > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 8:26 AM > http://bit.ly/6YfeXJ > > - - - > But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the > scientific equivalent > of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those > concerning the > way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or > suppressed > evidence in order to support their cause. > > Here are a few tasters. > > Manipulation of evidence: > > "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in > the real temps > to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) > amd from > 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." > > Private doubts about whether the world really is heating > up: > > "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of > warming at the > moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data > published in > the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be > even more > warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing > system is > inadequate." > > Suppression of evidence: > > "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re > AR4? > > "Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – > minor family crisis. > > "Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I > don’t have his > new email address. > > "We will be getting Caspar to do likewise." > > Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic > scientists: > > "Next > time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be > tempted to beat > the crap out of him. Very tempted." > > Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval > Warm Period (MWP): > > "……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using > about a dozen NH > records that fit this category, and many of which are > available nearly > 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, > rather than > the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made > w/ regard > to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” > the putative > “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean > reconstruction > available that far back…". > > And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of > communications > discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of > the peer > review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific > climate in > which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a > crank, > whose views do not have a scrap of authority. > > “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics > for not > publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. > Obviously, they found a > solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do > about this? I > think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as > a legitimate > peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our > colleagues in > the climate research community to no longer submit to, or > cite papers > in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we > tell or > request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit > on the > editorial board…What do others think?” > > “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having > nothing more > to do with it until they rid themselves of this > troublesome > editor.”“It results from this journal having a number > of editors. The > responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He > has let a > few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve > had words > with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another > thing to > discuss in Nice !” > > - - - > > Hey I think I know where Saddam's WMDs are: Right next to > the earth's > anthropogenic global warming consensus. > > - Publius > > "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this > country, > under an efficient government, will probably be an > increasing object > of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that > enterprises to > subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of > foreign > powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted > by some of > them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can > be > avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but > those whose > situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the > faithful > and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers > #59] > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > This message: > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are > the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or > medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for > those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
