Robert McKay <[email protected]> wrote: I don't doubt that.. the climatologists themselves aren't going to benefit > much either way (although I'm sure many of them make a modest livings out > of it - and that's not nothing these days). They're merely needed to > produce those tedious reports.. they just need to keep churning out talking > points to keep the issue alive.
Look, that is ridiculous. People do not act that way! A person does not spend 5 or 10 years slaving away to get a PhD without being in love with the subject. You don't do that just to get some meaningless, dead-end job churning out fake data for corporations for 60 hours a week. Scientists are not paid well. They do not have high status jobs. They do not have any prospect of sudden wealth, the way programmers sometimes do. The only reason most of them do what they do is out of curiosity, and for love of learning. They will NOT spend the 50 years of their working career promoting what they know to be a lie. If they saw problems with global warming data, they would say so. There is no unity among them, in my experience. Cold fusion scientists love attacking one another as much as the skeptics love doing that. Furthermore, they are engaged in rigorous, evidence-based, hard science. You cannot fake results in physics for long. If anyone bothers to look at the results at all, someone will soon catch you. Unimportant results may lie around untested and unreplicated, but global warming data is important. There are a zillion well paid skeptical opponents itching to prove it is wrong. If they could have, they would have by now. There are also many well-paid skeptical opponents of cold fusion. If they could have found an error in the data presented by McKubre, Miles or Fleischmann, they would have, long LONG ago. Not a single paper has been published showing a real error. By now we must assume the skeptics have nothing. The same goes for the climate skeptics. They have published nonsensical accusations that the data was fudged in the UK. I can read. I can see that is not the case. With this "16 year claim" it is clear they tried the same trick that the NHE project used to hide the excess heat in Miles' data: picking an unusually high moment close to the start. Look here; you can see at a glance that is what they did: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/03/climate_change_deniers_write_another_fact_free_op_ed.html They used the red portion, an absurdly biased sample. That's a joke, is what that is. These are stupid, cheap tricks. No one should fall for them. If they had a valid case, they would have made it by now. The fact that they use stupid tricks like this shows they have nothing real to present. - Jed
