Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks
If Global Warming, and now "Climate Change," is on the up and up, what is with all the scientific fraud and why are the scientist critics being demonized and ignored?
Why can't there be a straight up debate?
How come Al Gore's massive investment in the business is not a red flag for his possible bias?
|
There should be a straight up debate - the problem so far is that very few actual climate scientists have been willing to take your side of the debate.
So, it behooves your side to find and bring to the table climatologists to argue your position and submit real peer-reviewable science articles to that real science journals.
This is what your side should be concentrating on.
---
Now, which science frauds are you referring too specifically, so we can analyse their truth and the peer judgements of the frauds in question?
The only claimed fraud I know about is the scottish stolen emails thing, and this has been investigated close to ten times, and in none of the investigations has an allegation of fraud been supported.
So, the claim of fraud in the anglia emails is itself a fraud, or so the investigations so far have said.
I am still waiting for your side to present an investogation that argues that any actual fraud was committed.
If your side wants to suggest other frauds, I say, put them on the table and lets examine them. Science is not immune from fraud, but science, unlike politics and business, has a very good record of investiogating fraud and destroying the careers of scientists who commit fraud.
---
Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician, and nothing gore says or does has any relevance to the science of climate study. Your sides references to him only demonstrate your political rather than scientific bias.