4 ms·

So let's recap: -no longer allowing differing scientific opinions (in many communities regarding climate change, this is banned)..which reminds me of the same

So let's recap: -no longer allowing differing scientific opinions (in many communities regarding climate change, this is banned)..which reminds me of the same tactics the catholic church used to use in the middle ages -'fast-tracking' science from 1 year to 3 days (which I find extremely hard to believe) If I proposed this in any other professional field of study, there would be outrage. I would like to see an investigation on where taxes in many of these European countries are going and who is funding these studies. So much money is now involved in climate change, it's difficult to see how many of these 'scientific studies' are actually based on facts.

dmfdmf 12y ago
I agree this is about politics and money, not science. The leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit proved they were manipulating data and blocking the work and careers of anyone disagreeing.
- dalke 12y ago
  To be more precise, fitting data to a model can be part of an inclusive definition of "manipulating data", and asking to delete emails discussing AR4 in order to avoid a Freedom of Information request definitely falls under "blocking the work of someone disagreeing", so I am not saying you are wrong. But if you mean fraudulently manipulating data, and having the ability to actually block or seriously and negatively affect the careers of everyone who disagreed? For that, there is no evidence in those emails. Eight different committees, from multiple countries and organizations, "investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." This includes the Department of Commerce, as requested by Senator Inhofe, who believes that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".