Anti Global Warming Scientist a fraud?

Discussion in 'World News / Current Events Forum' started by CPLZ, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. CPLZ

    CPLZ Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    329
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    IL
    Wei-Hock Soon has long been held up as the pre eminent scientist to debunk that Global Warming is Man Made, theory. His resume and standing is highly impressive.

    But now it appears, that he was hiding the fact that he was taking money, up to 1.2 million from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, in violation of the journals? ethical guidelines to which his contrarian papers were published.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/
     
  2. Boomn4x4

    Boomn4x4 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,662
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    Wasn't published by foxnews.com or redstate.com

    All lies.
     
  3. num70

    num70 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,363
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Location:
    MA
    Man...

    The amount of ridiculous statements by "powerful" people here is astounding.

    Who says that? A scientist that cannot be challenged? Ridiculous.

    Said no one. Ever. Certainly no credible person.

    Further evidence to me that both sides are crooked as a dog's hind leg and if you seek genuine data, you're SOL.
     
  4. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,500
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Al Gore is still fat.
     
  5. hartfish

    hartfish Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,471
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Location:
    virginia
    Taking money from a left-leaning taxpayer-funded administration to promote a pro-GW agenda is any different?

    At least I'm not paying someone (unwillingly) to distort an issue to further their own cause and keep the river of cash flowing.

    There is disingenuousness in some form or another on both sides of any hotly debated issue.
     
  6. CPLZ

    CPLZ Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    329
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    IL
    Yup...the truth can be elusive. Lots of good explanations in the article on why the two sides are so opposed.

    If you ever wondered if political spin has a significant impact on perception, this quote should end that...

    Nearly 90 percent of scientists say climate change is caused by humans ? but only one-half of Americans agree.

    Being in a majority doesn't automatically make someone right, but when dealing with scientific hypothesis, things above the 90% threshold tend to be highly accurate.
     
  7. blinddog

    blinddog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,260
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Easton, Maryland
    What conclusions from his research are proven to be false?

    So are you claiming to be skeptical of the work of one scientist being supported by a relatively small amount of private money but you are supportive of scientists who have taken more than $20 Billion from a government desperately needing to "prove" AGW to change policy?

    Sound reasoning... :tu :l
     
  8. pintail2222

    pintail2222 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,846
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    Collier Co. Florida
    My daughter and 95% of her friends believe that their is a Tooth Fairy... How accurate are they?


    You have to understand the source of the "97% of scientists believe that climate change" claim:

    "...the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

    One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

    Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers."
     
  9. pintail2222

    pintail2222 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    17,846
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    Collier Co. Florida
    Global Warming is a fact - the Wisconsin Ice Sheet that used to cover the majority of the State of MN was melted - Global Warming melted it.

    I would believe that man is responsible for Global Warming if Scientists could get back testing data correct on their computer models. But they can't even get them to do that - so how do we believe future predictions?

    Back in 2007 computer models predicted that the North Pole would be completely ice-free by the summer of 2014. Come 2014 - and it turns out the computer models were completely wrong. 2014 was the second summer in a row that the ice cap expanded in the North Pole and the summer ice depth was well within the average range for the years from 1961 to 2010...
     
  10. thekillerofmallard

    thekillerofmallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,711
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Location:
    Napa Ca.
    facts that you can see don't count::l:l:l
     

Share This Page