Fudging

Space/Science » in reply to I also liked that link as a source.

Fudging

Tom Brosz — 5/11/2005 4:16:04 AM (archived)

The man said that the group tweaked his data to promote a certain viewpoint. If they did it with his data, how many times have they done it elsewhere?

Scientists who are selling something may still be right, but they are operating under a handicap as scientists.

You can easily see this conflict when a scientist is working for a corporation. Why can't you see it when they're working for a political agenda?

The whole thread (40 posts)

Global warming - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 2:07:26 AM
- another important factor - E.P. Grondine - 5/10/2005 2:40:52 AM
  - re: another important factor - gbaikie - 5/10/2005 4:45:38 AM
- Yup- ya just disproved the whole global warming myth! - R.L. - 5/9/2005 5:01:00 AM
  - R.L. please inform us of your educational credentials on this subject? - Scott Evil - 5/9/2005 5:55:08 PM
  - re: Yup- ya just disproved the whole global warming myth! - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 6:42:16 AM
    - LOL you are illiterate I guess - R.L. - 5/9/2005 7:07:01 AM
      - re: LOL you are illiterate I guess - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 8:42:42 AM
        
        A non-peer reviewed, opinion article from 2000? - et - 5/9/2005 2:33:52 PM
        
        Levitus - Tom Brosz - 5/9/2005 5:07:18 PM
        
        Peer review: Oreskes v. Peiser - pwokenyaw - 5/9/2005 7:23:01 PM
        
        But peer review failed! - Sam F. - 5/10/2005 7:45:50 AM
        
        no it didn't, here's the proof that Peiser lacks credibility - pwokenyaw - 5/10/2005 4:56:01 PM
        
        proof - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 3:02:56 AM
        
        Landsea doesn't disagree with AGW - pwokenyaw - 5/11/2005 4:57:42 PM
        
        A couple more items. - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 3:36:47 AM
        
        A couple more desperate flailings.... - et - 5/11/2005 4:14:54 AM
        
        Solar activity - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 5:11:22 AM
        
        More sources newer than 5 years old? - et - 5/11/2005 5:16:26 AM
        
        What, did the existing data wear out? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 11:41:27 PM
        
        The existing contention lingers on. - et - 5/12/2005 6:13:30 PM
        
        Short synopsis - Tom Brosz - 5/13/2005 2:58:26 AM
        
        okay, here's your refutation on cosmic rays - pwokenyaw - 5/12/2005 1:04:33 AM
        
        Okay - Tom Brosz - 5/12/2005 3:47:19 AM
        
        I also liked that link as a source. - et - 5/11/2005 3:31:12 AM
        
        Fudging - Tom Brosz - 5/11/2005 4:16:04 AM
        
        re: Fudging - et - 5/11/2005 4:28:17 AM
        
        re: no it didn't, here's the proof that Peiser lacks credibility - gbaikie - 5/11/2005 2:09:51 AM
        
        Extract and answer.... - End Trans. - 5/11/2005 2:52:51 AM
        
        re: Extract and answer.... - gbaikie - 5/11/2005 6:10:06 AM
        
        Extract first, then answer.... - et - 5/11/2005 2:51:27 PM
        
        re: Extract first, then answer.... - gbaikie - 5/12/2005 4:19:10 AM
        
        Fine. Now draw those lines on the graphs, and tell me what you see. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 5/10/2005 3:58:46 AM
        
        re: Fine. Now draw those lines on the graphs, and tell me what you see. - pwokenyaw - 5/10/2005 5:22:09 PM
        
        That's an interesting read - Sam F. - 5/9/2005 9:11:29 AM
- Urban Heat Island myth passed around by denialists - pwokenyaw - 5/9/2005 4:31:19 AM
  - re: Urban Heat Island myth passed around by denialists - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 6:17:42 AM
- A few thoughts. - Tom Brosz - 5/9/2005 2:52:51 AM
  - re: A few thoughts. - gbaikie - 5/9/2005 4:59:45 AM
    - re: A few thoughts. - Tom Brosz - 5/9/2005 7:17:43 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (40 posts)