Prof Says “Deniers” Distort Climate Memos

A Semi-News/Semi-Satire from AzConservative ^ | 19 December 2009 | John Semmens

[John Semmens]

In a Washington Post op ed, Penn State University Professor Michael Mann insisted that “Palin and other global warming deniers have distorted the content” of the e-mails from the British University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

“Ms. Palin and her ilk are pulling words out of context to create the impression that global warming is a hoax,” Mann said. “She is merely broadcasting her ignorance of scientific terminology in pursuit of a political agenda bent on preventing governments from exercising the necessary control to avert climate catastrophe.”

Among the “scientific terms” Governor Palin is said to have misconstrued are the words “bogus,” “misleading,” and “cooked” numbers. “These are very valid terms in the proper context,” Mann argued. “Those who aren’t scientists cannot be expected to understand that these words may describe techniques that have been widely accepted in the academic community as necessary in the struggle to obtain grant funding.”

“Confounding or contradictory data could prove deadly to the fate of a funding request,” Mann continued. “Cooking the numbers, suppressing nonconforming evidence and misleading prospective donors are minor transgressions compared to the alternative of tapped-out funding.”

[Wahoo82]

We do need a term to call these people. I currently like "global warming scammers" or just "scammers".

[MaxMax]

Wait a minute, this isn't satire!

[preacher]

CO2sceptics website
http://climaterealists.com/

3,441 articles

[Bon mots]

[Rocky]

Every time you post one of your satirical articles, half the responders take it seriously. The articles are perhaps too close to truth.

[Duffboy]

‘Ms. Palin and her ilk”

Whenever I see that word “ilk” I tune out
Liberals love throwing it out and I throw up.

[wastedyears]

LOL This is a good one John.

[ThunderSleeps]

Ok then sport...er... "prof"... You would think this would be basic science, basic research 101. But apparently the climate "scientists" need a reminder.

I develop software for large scale computer modelling of complex systems for a living. (different domain though) You want to be taken seriously as a modeller, you have to at least do the following:

• Show us the original, unaltered data - all of it.
• Show us the data that has been excluded from studies and analysis, including the scientific, mathematical justification for such an exclusion. This should include counter arguments for including the data, and why they are not accepted. Include in your report the with and without cases for this data so that we may see the sensitivity of the results to this data.
• Show us the adjustments to the data analysed, including the supporting justifications for every adjustment. Include the counter proposals and theories on what adjustments should, or should not be included. Include in the final report analysis done with alternative adjustments so that we may see the sensitivity of the results to the adjustments.
• Publish all source code and algorithms for processing the data. Allow, even encourage others to duplicate your results. Follow ISO and CMMI processes/certification protocols in the development and documentation of your software.
• Publish all results, even those that do not agree with your original thesis.

What would these profs, academics etc. do if a doctorate candidate came to them with his/her thesis but had pulled the kind of {excrement} the so-called climate scientists have pulled (and continue to try to pull) on the world? Said candidate would be run out of the program and booted from the College/University. Many of the "scientists" involved in this scam should be at least censured, if not fired for scientific and academic fraud. I would not want to be associated with any higher learning institution or research company associated with this fiasco.

[Corporate Law]

It is a hoax “Professor”.

[FreeperFlirt]

Governor Palin is said to have misconstrued are the words “bogus,” “misleading,” and “cooked” numbers. Sounds good to me, Obozo would have said “you can trust us” you betcha we cant, notice how long obozo nose is now?

[sodpoodle]

Thanks JS

In the North East witnessing 25 inches of their GW SNOW JOB!!!!!

[writer33]

Funny, John. Thanks for posting it.

[Hacklehead]

“Confounding or contradictory data could prove deadly to the fate of a funding request,” Mann continued. “Cooking the numbers, suppressing nonconforming evidence and misleading prospective donors are minor transgressions compared to the alternative of tapped-out funding.”

I’m a scientist and I can tell you that what Mann describes in the above paragraph constitutes FRAUD. I know of scientists who have been FIRED from their jobs for such behavior. Its very enlightening to see that the warmists think of it as normal.

[aruanan]

“Confounding or contradictory data could prove deadly to the fate of a funding request,” Mann continued. “Cooking the numbers, suppressing nonconforming evidence and misleading prospective donors are minor transgressions compared to the alternative of tapped-out funding.”

You're absolutely right. This is an admission of fraud packaged as moral relativity: Getting what I think I want and need is the supreme importance and justifies lying about data, hiding data, and lying to sources of funding to get it.

[aruanan]

Of course, this is a satire.

[Hacklehead]

“Of course, this is a satire.”

Damn. They got me.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Good one!

[rockinqsranch]

Thanks for the chuckle once again John.

[Springman]

John has gotten me good before, bought it hook, line, and sinker.

He’s so good, it maybe they way the libs do think.

[oldteen]

Thanks John. It’s getting VERY hard to tell which part is satire.