6
Feb
Feb
Scientists behaving badly as the scandals grow
The Wall Street Journal.com has a must read that says the scandals just keep pouring from the laboratories. This quote about sums it up:
“The experiments never turned out the way they were supposed to, and so we were always having to fudge the results so that the projects wouldn't be screwy. I always felt guilty about that dishonesty, but now I feel like we were doing real science.”
Maurice Strong, Al Gore and James Hansen are bringing about the fall of the US economy.
Strong works out of China implementing there global socialist agenda, Al Gore controls energy and environmental policy through Obama and Hansen destroys NASA chasing the climate change fairy.
Washington Post,today has artical on the expected disintegration of europe over the imposition of marxist,socialist,agenda’s regarding integration with all north african countries,funded by climate taxes .
There is speculation that P. Obama is on a similar course .
Dark forces abound.
Totally agree. The € is on it’s last legs, Greece is about to get the push unless something extraordinary happens, Portugal, Spain and Italy could follow in quick succession, a return to national currencies looks imminent. Countries need to devalue their currencies to restore competitiveness in the individual economies, that in turn would drive domestic manufacturing and consumption and start to generate wealth again.
Good read by the WSJ. God preserve Rupert Murdoch forever. amen.
Maurice strong started out as a stock promoter up here in Canada selling worthless oil shares on the Calgary Stock Exchange.
After swindling a bunch of “investors” he became an advisor to Jack Gallagher, head of Dome Petroleum which was another big stock promotion that got huge government grants to find oil in the arctic.
It was another big scam.
Now He is part of the biggest attempted scam of all time.
Are there any reliable sources to prove these very interesting statements?
NOPE!
I was a stockbroker back then and all I can say is that it was what I observed and heard. No reliable sources that I know of.
I actually had client buy Dome Pete. One of my clients’s brother was a Swiss Bank Analyst.
He came over to Canada to research Dome Pete and before he left for Switzerland, he said one word—– SELL!
Maurice would make a good cellmate for Bernie Madoff.
More news to read:
Telegraph-
Climate makes money move in mysterious ways
link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html
blog link
http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/2010/02/climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious.html
“In 2001 the Department for International Development (DfID) spent £315,277 commissioning a team of British scientists to investigate this prediction. After co-opting its Indian originator, Dr Syed Hasnain, they reported in 2004 that his claim was just a scare story.”
Lots more……
Yes, good read from the Wall Street Journal, which wasn’t about climate science in particular but science in general. I assume you know that if you quote out of context like that you won’t be believed, so I’m deleting you from my bookmarks.
He must be taking his toys and going home to mommy.
Thanks, Gerontius, its always satisfying to see alarmists fleeing to hide under their stones.
And along comes Africagate
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html
Um…that quote you’re making is being taken completely out of context to make your argument sound better. It’s not something a scientist said, but a parent of a kid doing a science fair project. Why the heck would you do something so hypocritical? We are here trying to accuse climate scientists of doing shady things like that. This puts you on their level, does it not?
Ummm lets do some nitpicking here. Breathe deeply, exhale, calm down and read the article again, and pay attention this time.
It is about so-called scientists cheating. I’d venture a guess the Editor used that quote because it sounds exactly like what EAU, Watts, Pachauri, and the “scientists” in the other areas described in the article were all were doing to make sure their science arrived at the conclusion they desired. Which is why the quote was in the article to begin with.
Now go back to school and take a remedial reading comprehension class.
I understood the quote —and the article— exactly as you had planned it. Classic,
keep up the great work.,
All the best :
Ian
To me, it’s obvious that the quote makes it seem like an actual scientist was quoted saying that in the article. Instead, the author was quoting a friend who was describing a school science fair. That is misleading. I read the article. I know what it is about. You are right, it’s about scientists cheating. Please, I wasn’t trying to start a internet fight here. I was just making an observation.
When I read “this pretty much sums up the article” and saw the quote, I clicked on the link to read the article and was expecting that quote to be made by a scientist describing what they were doing. When it wasn’t, I felt a like the poster was exaggerating what the article contained. That’s precisely what we are so mad at the climate scientists for doing. Imagine you are on the global warming camp–wouldn’t you be mad at that post for being misleading? For taking a quote out of context to make it seem more damning than it actually is? Please try to see what I am saying. Don’t fall for the “It’s not as bad when my side does it” thing. Wouldn’t you think it horrible if a warming site had a quote from an article saying “Phil Jones was found innocent,” yet it was mearly a prediction from a friend of the author?
Not trying to make a big deal of this, but I don’t appreciate the insults.
You are making much ado about nothing, Sam.
I know. It’s not a big deal. It’s just a silly way to use that quote. After finishing the article I had a “oh, come on” moment.
Exactly what I’m having now.
AFRICAGATE
IPCC’s “Africagate” blunder as told by Dr. Richard North
Dr. Richard North, who does investigative journalism at the EU referendum blog, has a comprehensive analysis and backgrounder on the latest in a series of blunders by the IPCC that have been uncovered. It complements the just released story by Jonathan Leake of The Sunday Times that highlights a leading British scientist calling for IPPC to “tackle the blunders or lose all credibility“
Here is Dr. North’s introduction to the issue:
And now for Africagate
Following an investigation by this blog (and with the story also told in The Sunday Times), another major “mistake” in the IPCC’s benchmark Fourth Assessment Report has emerged.
Similar in effect to the erroneous “2035″ claim – the year the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers were going to melt – in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020. …
…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/06/ipccs-latest-blunder-africagate-as-told-by-dr-richard-north/
BP India(Big oil), pays for dinner and drinks at an event publicising Dr Pachauri’s(Head of the IPCC) explicitly gross debut novel, “Return to Almora”.
It also emerged BP has provided £6 million to Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI organization. A BP spokesman said it was entirely legitimate to fund the dinner, the company having enjoyed a “long association with Dr Pachauri”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177323/Climate-change-research-bungle.html
So there you go, no conflict of interest between the IPCC and Big Oil then.
I thought last week Pachauri was blaming Big Oil for funding the sceptics. Incredible.