Comments on: A literary take on scientific corruption

By: gkong3

gkong3 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:17:50 +0000

Hey, yet another person who reads Sayers! The Wimsey fan club just keeps growing…
By the way, Ymarsakar, I don’t remember the ‘Christian model’ including indulgences. Maybe you mean the ‘Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church’ instead. For certain, Protestants of every stripe would defend Sola Fide vociferously.
Plus, you know, Christianity practically demands that we test its claims. AGW… well, not so much.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:03:16 +0000

Those who claim that AGW has taken on the trappings of a religion may be onto something.

It meets all the normal barometers. Using the Christian model, you have indulgences that allow one to pay for one’s sin in coin, thus absolving one of guilt or need to do good works. Also, you have the concept of Original Sin, with salvation being mandated explicitly through an entity. For Christianity, it is Jesus Christ and faith. For environmental cultists, it is faith and belief in controlling ‘emissions’ and other pollutants.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:59:36 +0000

Death is the only sure fire answer to punishing evil actions. There is no substitute.

By: Gringo

Gringo — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:54:49 +0000

Al Gore, no scientist himself, although he plays one on TV….
Classic! He took all of two science courses in college, and no math courses. For his knowledge of the subject, he could just as well have been a TV pitchman for OxyClean.

Those who claim that AGW has taken on the trappings of a religion may be onto something. Even now that we’ re informed that the raw CRU data has been lost (it may be hidden somewhere) with who knows what fudge factors resulting in the current data, some AGW proponents are claiming that AGW still holds. The e-mails where the muckety-mucks talk about delegitimizing a journal if it’s no longer under control of the right people sound like priests casting out heretics.
When “consensus” trumps replicable and verifiable results, we are no longer dealing in science.

By: Caped Crusader

Caped Crusader — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:44:07 +0000

Taught my children now in their forties that they would never find a church as orthodox, rigid and intolerant of dissent as the department in any university. That was 25 years ago and it is exponentially worse since that time. Science at present is a joke and it remains to be seen if there are enough real scientific minds to demand it be cleaned and the political hacks expunged forever. We all hold doctoral degrees from top 20 universities.

By: pst314

pst314 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:24:05 +0000

“The only ethical principle which has made science possible is that the truth shall be told all the time.”
…in which case, science has become perhaps not impossible, but unlikely, for at least 35 years: Scientists frankly and unashamedly lie in order to pursue grant money.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:30:33 +0000

The real problem is money and power. These men are not scientists; they are paid shills. The grant money that has flowed their way for decades now is immense. They have *every* possible incentive, with the exception of scientific truth of course, to produce the “correct data”. ”Correct Data” is defined as that data that keeps the grant money flowing. To produce any other data, or any other conclusion would leave them bankrupt, as their grant providers would immediately shut off the cash flow.

In addition to money, there is power. These shill and scam artists set up a peer review system wherein only those who agreed with them could peer-review, and those who disagreed found their papers ignored and found themselves shut out of the peer review process. Anyone who knows how higher education works knows that this is an exercise of raw, rank power. And every diligent professor-to-be, and scientist-to-be would take note: Do not piss off those In Power, or you will be shut out of the process. Nothing could be worse for the aspiring professor or scientist. To be shut out is to wither on the vine and die, and leave academia, to be employed by a business somewhere. And those in power in academia thereby accrue… more power.

Raw. Rank. Power.

By: Right Truth

Right Truth — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:22:33 +0000

Magnificent! What seems would be an obvious truth in the quote does not apply to those involved in the global warming/climate change crowd. What a shame simple honesty has been pushed aside for political ends.

By: Watcher of Weasels » Slowing the Left’s Lysenko-Gore Climate Change Hoax

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:45:03 +0000

[...] Also: Michelle Malkin, Bookworm, Hot Air, HyScience Sphere: Related [...]