3 thoughts on “The doctored science of global warming”

  1. We need to recognize that both data sets and analysis can be shaped to a desired result. It makes sense to separate the collecting and building of important data sets from the analysis of said data sets.

  2. For seventy years (1946-2016) governments paid scientists to hide from the public the source of energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki:


    The entire structure of post-WWII science was designed for this single purpose. For the sake of society, we must now forgive those who deceived us” in order to more quickly restore integrity to government science and constitutional limits on formerly independent national governments.

  3. Stan Young, you have it right.
    The data collector who expects a certain result is almost always susceptible to expectation bias, and may ignore or alter data that would contradict the favorite hypothesis. The best tests of any theory are data sets gathered by *independent* investigators. This is especially true when the people who are gathering the data with the intent of disproving the hypothesis accumulate data that vindicates it, as happened repeatedly with tests of GR.

Comments are closed.