"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Monday, May 10, 2010

Fake Picture used to Defend Fake Science

You must appreciate the beautiful irony of Science magazine using a falsified picture in an article defending claims of climate scientist's data falsification .. Skeptics around the world are chortling over the incident provoking a   reaction from uber-Warmist journalist Andrew Revkin of the NYT and this piece from the Huffing'n'PuffingPost :
It is too bad that the editors picked a bad piece of art to accompany our letter but the focus of the climate deniers on the art is an effort to divert public attention once again from the facts of climate change. This is exactly what we’re talking about in the letter. A few vocal deniers will grasp at any straw to muddy the public’s attention and understanding of the real climate threats we face.

I guess the Warmists don't have a sense of humour - it must be against their religion!


  1. The say in the Science Magazine article and I quote...

    "There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend."... quote ends.

    The article then goes on to make a big issue about fame is awaiting those able to discredit accepted theory (in this instance read 'dogma')and promotes this as the most desirable of all scientific achievments.

    So the real issue is this. At what point does something become scientifically discredited?

    How much higher do CO2 levels need to go without having any major impact on climate before the die-hard alarmists are prepared to admit they are wrong?

    How many of their model projections need to fail before they are prepared to admit they are wrong?

    How long do we have to wait to find out sea levels are only rising modestly, if at all and that any rise is just part of normal natural events?

    How much more ice do they need to see at both the arctic and antarctic circles before they admit they had that wrong too?

    How many non-hotspots over the equator must we observe before they admit it 'aint going to happen?

    When will the scientists be prepared to admit that climate cooling is just as much a possibility as global warming and that it is potentially a far more harmful one?

    The last point should be an easy one for them to concede as presents them with a brand new disaster scenario in the making to attract a whole new bucketful of research dollars.

    We can hear it now... "Hey guys, we got it wrong, so now we need to start all over again and model our cooling disasters so start writing the big cheques."

    Gimme a break... I'm not a scientist, just a poor old skeptic!!!!

  2. The really "bad art" used by alarmists is not this silly polar bear photo. It is the "climate models" they have created that are truly awful.

  3. Bill from Manhattan BeachMay 11, 2010 at 12:37 PM

    The people behind the curtain at the Journal Science have been blind to it's diminishing credibility over lopsided climate science coverage for quit some time. Finding a new climate writer this year was a step in the right direction, but falling back to this Al Gorish photo op must be taken as deliberate and childish deception. Get your act together or loose a decades long supporter.