What pushes scientists to lie?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The important thing is the processes in place to discourage excessive lying. When results are published they often get checked by other scientists who get some credit if they succeed in disproving the claims made. It becomes a lot more difficult when the studies involve large amounts of money, or access to materials would be a problem. This is one reason ...[text shortened]... ientists check methodologies when they can, but they can't always carry out large scale studies.

The important thing is the processes in place to discourage excessive lying.

So moderate lying is fine?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You have to actually ask that question? Motivated to get ahead in their science field, publish or perish. You want that tenured position, you better come up with results.

You want to support your no human influence on the climate any way you can so you attack a scientist in a totally different field.

Why don't you do another study:

What is the total percentage of scientists who lie VS those who are truthful?

I didn't attack the scientist in the link I posted. I simply used this as an example so people don't think I'm making up that scientists lie for various reasons.

What field a scientist's work is in doesn't make that much of a difference. The examples you listed apply to both fields. I did have a question. What is their primary incentive to lie? Now you seem to be in denial that I posted a question.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I didn't attack the scientist in the link I posted. I simply used this as an example so people don't think I'm making up that scientists lie for various reasons.

What field a scientist's work is in doesn't make that much of a difference. The examples you listed apply to both fields. I did have a question. What is their primary incentive to lie? Now you seem to be in denial that I posted a question.

The problem here is the world is coming apart at the seams. You deny that. People get PAID to deny that. JUST LIKE THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. You remember those asssholes who were grilled by congress and they lied through their teeth about the health risk of cigarettes? They had plenty of motivation to lie because their business DEPENDED on lying.

The scientists telling the world is going to hell in a handbasket have no motivation other than the truth.

If there are reports out there, reputable reports, that gets published and peer reviewed for accuracy, then the deniers will get traction.

The only traction they have is to lie lie lie.

The fracking industry is FULL of such liars. They start fracking, and a house gets methane gas in its water supply and the company denies denies denies.

You cannot refute that. That is public knowledge. They try to convince people the wells were contaminated decades ago when that was just another bullshyte lie.

You see that going on in other countries as well. I saw reports on tv where farms next to fracking operations could not use the water for irrigation because it was so explosive it came out of the pipe burning.

But the fracking industry just claims, oh, that methane was around long before we started fracking.

The same bloody thing is going on in the energy industry. Like coal.

That was the gist of the Soon report. This guy has a lot of street creds. It is not like Jon Stewart lambasting fracking. He is the supposed real deal and people listen to him as an authority.

When someone like that gets bought off it has results that far outstrip the one individual making simple charges like I am here.

His street cred goes to congress, convinces congressmen to make laws allowing the ruination of our climate to go on unabated and you go right along with them, totally convinced, just like the duped religious crowd, that everything will work out in the end.

You could give a shyte how many people may die in the next 200 years with this unbridled run for greed, keep it up as long as humanly possible, just as long as MY mansion stays the way it is now, consuming a giga watt a year. So what, I pay for all that electricity or natural gas that heats my patio concrete floor and my 4 swimming pools in the winter. So what? I PAY FOR IT SO MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

THAT is the mind set that has to be changed or we WILL be in deep doo doo and you can take that to the bank, yank.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The problem here is the world is coming apart at the seams. You deny that. People get PAID to deny that. JUST LIKE THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. You remember those asssholes who were grilled by congress and they lied through their teeth about the health risk of cigarettes? They had plenty of motivation to lie because their business DEPENDED on lying.

The scient ...[text shortened]... t that has to be changed or we WILL be in deep doo doo and you can take that to the bank, yank.

"If there are reports out there, reputable reports, that gets published and peer reviewed for accuracy, then the deniers will get traction."

Dr. S. Fred Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report

He has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including the following since 1996:

Singer, S.F. 1996. Climate debate. Nature 384: 522–523.

Singer, S.F. 1999. Human contribution to climate change remains questionable. Also, Reply. EOS: Transactions, American Geophysical Union 80 (33): 186–187 and 372–373.

Singer, S.F. 2000. Climate policy—From Rio to Kyoto a political issue for 2000 and beyond. Essays in Public Policy 102. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Singer, S.F. 2001. Global warming: An insignificant trend? Science 292: 1063–1064.

Singer, S.F. 2001. Disparity of temperature trends of atmosphere and surface. Paper presented at 12th Symposium on Global Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, Albuquerque, NM.

Singer, S.F. 2002. Statistical analysis does not support human influence on climate. Energy and Environment 13:329–331.

Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B., and Singer, S.F. 2004. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 31.

Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B.D., Singer, S.F., Knappenberger, P.C., and Michaels, P.J. 2004. Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: new evidence. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L13207, DOI:10.1029/2004GL020212.

Douglass, D.H., Christy, J.R., Pearson, B.D., and Singer, S.F. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology (Royal Meteorological Society). DOI:10.1002/joc.1651.

Singer, S.F. 2010. Viewpoints and technical communications: a response to “The climate change debates,” Energy & Environment.

Loehle, C. and Singer, S.F. 2010. Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 47:1327–1336.

Singer, S.F. 2011. Lack of consistency between modeled and observed temperature trends. Energy & Environment 22: 375–406.

Singer, S.F. and C.W. Monckton. 2012. Overcoming chaotic behavior of climate models. In R. Ragaini (Ed.) International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies - 44th Session: The Role of Science in the Third Millennium. World Scientific Publishing Company.

Singer, S.F. 2012. IPCC exercise in curve-fitting to prove anthropogenic global warming (AGW), Energy & Environment 23 (4).

Singer, S.F. 2013. Inconsistency of modeled and observed tropical temperature trends. Energy & Environment 24: 405–413.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The only traction they have is to lie lie lie."

Show me where he lied. You have plenty of peer reviewed articles I provided for you above. Surely you can find a lie somewhere to support your allegation that Singer is a liar. If you don't you will look pretty stupid.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If there are reports out there, reputable reports, that gets published and peer reviewed for accuracy, then the deniers will get traction."

Dr. S. Fred Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bull ...[text shortened]... here to support your allegation that Singer is a liar. If you don't you will look pretty stupid.

Well, here is a bit about your beloved Singer:

http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, here is a bit about your beloved Singer:

http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming

Those allegations come from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gelbspan

He is a regular contributor on DeSmogBlog. That link you posted directs you to heatisonline.org.
Gelbspan maintains the website heatisonline.org, which he updates on a daily basis.
So far it seems we only have Gelbspan's word for this. Since he is a global warming activist I need to have a better source of information than that to determine who the liar is. So far is is nothing more than an allegation. If you can confirm Gelbspan's allegations I'll be interested.

All of this is irrelevant though. What is relevant is the research and you said they lie. Prove Singer lied in his peer reviewed articles. Better yet, read one of them or more. I think you will find Singer is an exceptionally intelligent man if you do.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Those allegations come from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Gelbspan

He is a regular contributor on DeSmogBlog. That link you posted directs you to heatisonline.org.
Gelbspan maintains the website heatisonline.org, which he updates on a daily basis.
So far it seems we only have Gelbspan's word for this. Since he is a global warming activist I n ...[text shortened]... one of them or more. I think you will find Singer is an exceptionally intelligent man if you do.

You are just a bit over the line naive. You really think Singer and Soon wants to lose their paychecks? They listen to who pays them. It is really quite simple.

You are so steeped in the republican programming, it is now your religion and nothing anyone can say will sway you to the dangers coming in the next 100 years.

And of course you will say, none of us will be alive in 100 years so what's the big deal.

And of course the answer is we want to try to leave the planet in a condition where people can still live in coastal communities if they want, not having to rebuild inland every few years because of the rising ocean levels or to rely on being able to grow crops which, btw, you think the 21st century dust bowl in the US won't happen. Time will tell and unfortunate for most folks we may not be the bread basket of the world anymore in another few decades.

So I am playing the hysteria card? Your greatgrandkids may beg to differ with you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are just a bit over the line naive. You really think Singer and Soon wants to lose their paychecks? They listen to who pays them. It is really quite simple.

You are so steeped in the republican programming, it is now your religion and nothing anyone can say will sway you to the dangers coming in the next 100 years.

And of course you will say, non ...[text shortened]... w decades.

So I am playing the hysteria card? Your greatgrandkids may beg to differ with you.

You are being naive. Everybody gets a paycheck from somebody. Government has a tendency to fund things that might be a problem. If you say there is no problem funding tends to dry up. I don't know anything about Soon. What I do notice is that you have not claimed he lied in his climate research. It is allegedly because he failed to disclose funding from a fossil fuel corporation. I don't know enough about it to determine it was intentional. The article you provided said the government doled out some of that funding using coal company money and that was why greenpeace asked congress to investigate. For all I know he may not have known the source/origin of the government funding. Maybe he did. I don't know, but it would not be fair to accuse him of anything intentional until I know the facts. You have not proven any of those allegations against Singer. It seems you have resorted to throwing a lot of dung in hopes some of it will stick. You have failed.

"You are so steeped in the republican programming, it is now your religion and nothing anyone can say will sway you to the dangers coming in the next 100 years."

I am not a republican and I never was one. You just assume that out of ignorance. The irony is that it is you that embraces GW alarmist propaganda like it is your religion. Facts simply do not sway you because you have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts. That is why you keep resorting to these hokey websites put up by brainwashed alarmists who are out to prove what they already believe and have no intention of swaying from that mindset.

My great grandkids will be fine. They will probably look back and wonder why CO2 was made out to be evil by fact dodgers like you and laugh. Climate scientists are already laughing at people like you.

YouTube

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are being naive. Everybody gets a paycheck from somebody. Government has a tendency to fund things that might be a problem. If you say there is no problem funding tends to dry up. I don't know anything about Soon. What I do notice is that you have not claimed he lied in his climate research. It is allegedly because he failed to disclose funding from ...[text shortened]... ientists are already laughing at people like you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

I get a paycheck or two but I WORK for it. I don't let some energy company just stuff 100 dollar bills in my pocket every time I turn around and then claim I owe them nothing.

You work for who pays you. Are you so stupid you can't see that?

Gee, he has titles like 'human involvement questionable'.

Global warming, an insignificant trend?

And you don't think he is bought off? What rock have you been living under?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I get a paycheck or two but I WORK for it. I don't let some energy company just stuff 100 dollar bills in my pocket every time I turn around and then claim I owe them nothing.

Gee, he has titles like 'human involvement questionable'.

Global warming, an insignificant trend?

And you don't think he is bought off? What rock have you been living under?

You keep claiming Singer has been bought off with no proof of it at all. The fact that you keep resorting to lies posted on hack websites and can't back up the false allegations says how desperate you are. People with facts on their side provide their source of information. Ross Gelbspan's source of information is his own website! LOL! Can't you see you have been duped by Gelbspan and that he is a liar? If you made a serious allegation like that would you post your own website as your source of information?

You are judging the book by it's cover. You obviously have no intention of reading Singer's work. You are afraid it will challenge your believe system. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance. You are scared. You will avoid the facts no matter what.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You keep claiming Singer has been bought off with no proof of it at all. The fact that you keep resorting to lies posted on hack websites and can't back up the false allegations says how desperate you are. People with facts on their side provide their source of information. Ross Gelbspan's source of information is his own website! LOL! Can't you see you ...[text shortened]... are experiencing cognitive dissonance. You are scared. You will avoid the facts no matter what.

What do you mean no proof at all? His bank records have shown him to have received 1.2 MILLION directly from energy companies. Exactly what proof would you consider proof? Of course he denies denies denies just like he does about the climate change which is going on right before our eyes but people like you are just to stuck in the pockets of republican/Rush Limberger/Fox news/ Bill O'rielly level of bullshyte to think for yourself any more.

I have a feeling you must be RJ Hinds brother or something. Maybe just another log in of RJ.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You keep claiming Singer has been bought off with no proof of it at all. The fact that you keep resorting to lies posted on hack websites and can't back up the false allegations says how desperate you are. People with facts on their side provide their source of information. Ross Gelbspan's source of information is his own website! LOL! Can't you see you ...[text shortened]... are experiencing cognitive dissonance. You are scared. You will avoid the facts no matter what.

Sonhouse provided some links to a website which had links to documentary evidence that he had received payments from tobacco companies to write a piece denying the adverse health effects of second hand smoke. While this is not exactly proof that he receives payments from oil companies to deny climate change, it is sufficient evidence for me to regard him as potentially financially biased in the matter. I don't think your first sentence stands up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you mean no proof at all? His bank records have shown him to have received 1.2 MILLION directly from energy companies. Exactly what proof would you consider proof? Of course he denies denies denies just like he does about the climate change which is going on right before our eyes but people like you are just to stuck in the pockets of republican/Rus ...[text shortened]...

I have a feeling you must be RJ Hinds brother or something. Maybe just another log in of RJ.

"His bank records have shown him to have received 1.2 MILLION directly from energy companies. Exactly what proof would you consider proof?"

All you have is one unsubstantiated allegation and even that did not show anything to indicate his bank records show 1.2 million directly from energy companies. Are you just making it up? What is your source of information?

If I alleged you have sex with sheep is that proof? No? What exactly would you consider proof? Isn't my word good enough? Get real!

Originally posted by DeepThought
Sonhouse provided some links to a website which had links to documentary evidence that he had received payments from tobacco companies to write a piece denying the adverse health effects of second hand smoke. While this is not exactly proof that he receives payments from oil companies to deny climate change, it is sufficient evidence for me to regard hi ...[text shortened]... ally financially biased in the matter. I don't think your first sentence stands up to scrutiny.

Is this potentially financially biased in the matter too?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Is this potentially financially biased in the matter too?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

So you must be a smoker AND a republican. They go together well.

So read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0