Off all the many desperate and idiot denier questions to flood the forum, this is one of the worst.
The only scientists who has been caught cheating are contrarian scientists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/...
"At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"
Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie Soon
https://youtu.be/q3pqMGHGNKg
Except for two grants from the Mount Wilson Observatory, all of Soon's research since 2002 has been funded by fossil fuel interests, according to Harvard-Smithsonian records. The 11 Soon papers range from denial of human-caused global warming to articles that downplay the role of climate change in ecological impacts.
https://youtu.be/8E11v7DY4UM
He not only took a lot of money, he hid that he took it. He keeps taking it. He knew what he was doing, regardless of his public statements since. Between the duplicity about funding and his inability to get the science right, he has no credibility. Others should be believed long before Soon or his ‘friends’.
2. WILLIAM HAPPER.
William Happer, born 1939 (age 78–79), is a climate change denier and Professor of Physics at Princeton University, specialising in MRI imaging. He has no training in climate science. He is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a denier think tank.
William Happer - SourceWatch
Happer is not a climate scientist, but is very often used as the “C02 is good for us” alibi. He is a typical fake expert and an “appeal to authority” fallacy in persona.
And let me warn you…this one is ugly!! This is after the same playbook tobacco industry used to play down the dangers of tobacco smoking.
Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
“Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal.”
“Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.”
“Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”
Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
Happer is simply a talking head for the polluters industry paid to talk down the dangers of climate change and to portrait C02 as a “gift from God”. The tobacco industry had similar fake experts to talk down the dangers of tobacco smoking.
3. ROY SPENCER AND JOHN CHRISTY
https://twitter.com/pdykstra/status/755800199319158787?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E755824865236647937&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-consensus-97-per-cent%2F2016%2Fjul%2F25%2Fthese-are-the-best-arguments-from-the-3-of-climate-scientist-skeptics-really
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/#more-20158
The only scientists who has been caught cheating are contrarian scientists.
- Willie Soon
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/...
"At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work,” the New York Times reported in February 2015"
Smithsonian Gives Nod to More 'Dark Money' Funding for Willie Soon
https://youtu.be/q3pqMGHGNKg
Except for two grants from the Mount Wilson Observatory, all of Soon's research since 2002 has been funded by fossil fuel interests, according to Harvard-Smithsonian records. The 11 Soon papers range from denial of human-caused global warming to articles that downplay the role of climate change in ecological impacts.
https://youtu.be/8E11v7DY4UM
He not only took a lot of money, he hid that he took it. He keeps taking it. He knew what he was doing, regardless of his public statements since. Between the duplicity about funding and his inability to get the science right, he has no credibility. Others should be believed long before Soon or his ‘friends’.
2. WILLIAM HAPPER.
William Happer, born 1939 (age 78–79), is a climate change denier and Professor of Physics at Princeton University, specialising in MRI imaging. He has no training in climate science. He is also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the George C. Marshall Institute and is on the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a denier think tank.
William Happer - SourceWatch
Happer is not a climate scientist, but is very often used as the “C02 is good for us” alibi. He is a typical fake expert and an “appeal to authority” fallacy in persona.
And let me warn you…this one is ugly!! This is after the same playbook tobacco industry used to play down the dangers of tobacco smoking.
Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
“Sting operation uncovers two prominent climate sceptics available for hire by the hour to write reports on the benefits of rising CO2 levels and coal.”
“Happer wrote in an email that his fee was $250 an hour and that it would require four days of work – a total of $8,000. “Depending on how extensive a document you have in mind, the time required or cost could be more or less, but I hope this gives you some idea of what I would expect if we were to proceed on some mutually agreeable course,” he wrote.”
“Our research reveals that professors at prestigious universities can be sponsored by foreign fossil fuel companies to write reports that sow doubt about climate change and that this sponsorship will then be kept secret,” said John Sauven, the director of Greenpeace UK. “Down the years, how many scientific reports that sowed public doubt on climate change were actually funded by oil, coal and gas companies? This investigation shows how they do it, now we need to know when and where they did it.”
Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
Happer is simply a talking head for the polluters industry paid to talk down the dangers of climate change and to portrait C02 as a “gift from God”. The tobacco industry had similar fake experts to talk down the dangers of tobacco smoking.
3. ROY SPENCER AND JOHN CHRISTY
Creationist Roy Spencer conveniently forgot to factor in sensor degredation in his database for a LONG time until the scientific community forced him to issue the corrections.The misleading and fake graph. You will find this is hundreds of denier blogs and videos.
But rather than doing a careful analysis of various potential explanations, McNider and Christy, as well as their colleague Roy Spencer, prefer to draw far reaching conclusions based on a particularly flawed comparison: They shift the modelled temperature anomaly upwards to increase the discrepancy with observations by around 50%. Using this tactic, Roy Spencer showed the following figure on his blog recently:
In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe.Spencer being paid to write junk science on behalf of fossil fuel funded think tanks:
https://twitter.com/pdykstra/status/755800199319158787?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E755824865236647937&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2Fclimate-consensus-97-per-cent%2F2016%2Fjul%2F25%2Fthese-are-the-best-arguments-from-the-3-of-climate-scientist-skeptics-really
Different types of numbershttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
The upper left panel in Fig. 1 shows that Christy compared the average of 102 climate model simulations with temperature from satellite measurements (average of three different analyses) and weather balloons (average of two analyses). This is a flawed comparison because it compares a statistical parameter with a variable.
A parameter, such as the mean (also referred to as the ‘average’) and the standard deviation, describe the statistical distribution of a given variable. However, such parameters are not equivalent to the variable they describe.
The comparison between the average of model runs and observations is surprising, because it is clearly incorrect from elementary statistics (This is similar statistics-confusion as the flaw found in the Douglass et al. (2007)).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/03/the-true-meaning-of-numbers/#more-20158
Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar