That’s Not Science; It’s Religious Belief

Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

…But perhaps the most damaging revelations … are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

…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 isn’t the only part of the scientific community that is guilty of trying to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process and creating a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees is written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

The EXACT same thing is happening in the area of science that studies origins.

If you haven’t already, watch the movie:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

UPDATE:
Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to That’s Not Science; It’s Religious Belief

  1. Global-warming advocates routinely criticize skeptics for not having enough peer-reviewed work rebutting their findings. If they’re conspiring to block the publication of such research, that undermines their argument and their scientific credibility.

  2. westexan says:

    So how does Global Warming advance the EU agenda(s) other than destroy the other world economies? LOL!!!

    You asked at another time if I was LDS, no. I have/had been WWCG for quite a long time. It fractured and I split–:). I suppose I am still WWCG. Where I live now they do not go under WWCG, but still retain the name when they want too ID who they are.

  3. westexan says:

    A prayer for Obama on this cool and beautiful Thanksgiving Eve in East Texas: Psalm 109:7-8

  4. Ryan says:

    Well aren’t you nice westexan. I suppose you’ve read the whole psalm and know that you are wishing for Obama to die, and for his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. I know you meant that because you would never take the Bible out of context.

    I think an apology would be forthright from any caring human being.

  5. westexan says:

    Ryan —Didn’t Obama apologize for me already? After all I am a former US Marine who fought for America. You are absolutely correct, I will not intentionally take anything in the bible out of context. Nor will I apologize for anything written in the bible. Semper Fi!

  6. westexan says:

    A prayer for America The Great: Psalm 109 ” Do not keep silent O God of my (America’s) praise! For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me (America); they have spoken against me (America) with a lying tongue. They have also surrounded me (America) with words of hatred, And fought against me (America) without a cause. In return for my (America’s) love they are my (America’s) accusers, But I (the American Patriot) give myself (America) to prayer. Thus they have rewarded me (America) evil for good, And hatred for my (America’s) love.

    Previously David had stated in Psalm 108:8 “Gilead is Mine. Manasseh is Mine; Ephraim also is the helmet for My head; Judah is My lawgiver.

    Great Britian, America, and the modern day State of Israel cannot be seperated. They are brothers. Why should we apologize?

  7. Aaron says:

    The Church of Environmentalism reminds me heavily of the medieval era Catholic church. How many Galileo’s will they seek to silence in pursuit of their agenda?

    I am reminded of our host’s own statement in a previous blog posting, where he referred to the cliche which the lefties always use. The cliche that begins with, “No credible scientist…”

    A direct hit, Mr Red.

  8. Thank you, Aaron.

    It was Ryan who said,

    “The evolution debate is over… There are no credible scientists who do not accept evolution.”

    My reply to Ryan can be found here.

  9. UPDATE:
    Meltdown of the climate ‘consensus’

    …the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data — but on speculation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

    Was science even a real concern for the IPCC?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s