Sentences with phrase «scientific scandal of»

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ Note his later paper «CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Or Time» Was this «quibble» ignored by IPCC?

With headlines such as «The final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming» and «The worst scientific scandal of our generation ``, libelous claims and wild extrapolations were published mere days after the emails were distributed.

Senator James Inhofe (R - OK), a longtime global warming denier who has called man - made climate change «the greatest scientific scandal of our generation,» criticized the award and asked the Justice Department to investigate prominent IPCC scientists for possible academic misconduct (they were never charged).

Thus, the greatest scientific scandal of all time is maintained by simply denying them the opportunity to hear any dissenting voices.

However, the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London's Telegraph newspaper called «the worst scientific scandal of our generation.»

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment can not be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

If that's the case there is a scientific scandal of immense proportions.

In fact, Jaworowski must have read the literature after 1992 because he recently published a paper in 2007 called «CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time» where he cites 24 papers that have been published after 1992 (23 of those published after 1996) and many of the papers he cites pertain to proxy - data, predominately ice - core.

In 1974, when Jocelyn Bell Burnell was left out of the physics prize, her fellow astronomer and Nobel reject, Fred Hoyle, told reporters it was a «scientific scandal of major proportions.»

«This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.»

Wegman scandal makes the news again, this time as one of the top new scientific scandals of the year:

Not exact matches

A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job.

With the scientific community still reeling from the University of East Anglia email hacking scandal, it is clear that a concerted effort needs to be made to ensure that climate science is seen to be robust and open to scrutiny.

A great source for what's making news in the complex world of scientific research, scandal and discovery.

But a cause for further soul - searching has emerged: a scientific scandal recalling discredited notions of racial purity.

Recent scandals have undermined the credibility of the international scientific body, yet the scientific evidence for climate change remains as strong as ever

«I fear we may have not learned any lessons from this case and will face other and bigger public health scandals in the absence of adequate scientific and medical caution over the effects of new treatments on young people and future generations,» he says.

The Science Careers Blog has a nice summary of what we know so far about the impact of the Bernard Madoff scandal on scientific institutions and philanthropies that donate to scientific research.

And scientific fallout from the Madoff scandal continues with the sinking of the Picower Foundation, a charity that funded Parkinson's disease and diabetes research.

RN's science flagship: your essential source of what's making news in the complex world of scientific research, scandal and discovery.

Scientists» response has been to commission reports to clear CRU of scientific wrongdoing, without realizing that these reports are ignored by the public, most of whom are still fixated on the «scandal» through corporate enabled organs of the press.

The «hockey stick» scientific «scandal» has been manufactured from the start on non-existent evidence, and promoted diligently on behalf of powerful interests.

1) press ignoring the Downing Street memo 2) media using retired generals, who have conflicts of interest with the Pentagon and defense contractors, as military analysts 3) holding fake FEMA press conferences with fake reporters 4) planting fake reporters at Whitehouse press conferences to ask friendly questions (Jeff Gannon) 5) Whitehouse secretly paying columnists outrageous sums to write favorable stories 6) Pentagon writing fake stories in Iraqi newspapers 7) political hacks rewriting the findings of scientific reports 8) putting journalists in jail for reporting wrongdoing 9) press basically ignoring the Justice Dept. Scandal even though it's worse than Watergate 10) the press basically ignoring voting irregularities 11) press ignoring Gov. Siegelman scandal 12) the Whitehouse using Newspeak when announcing legislatiScandal even though it's worse than Watergate 10) the press basically ignoring voting irregularities 11) press ignoring Gov. Siegelman scandal 12) the Whitehouse using Newspeak when announcing legislatiscandal 12) the Whitehouse using Newspeak when announcing legislation (ie.

The Climategate scandal played a role in the passage of the amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, who successfully made the case that the Climategate emails discredit the UN's claims to scientific integrity: «emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer - reviewed journals,» he stated.

With Obama and Premier Wen Jiabao's visits, the recent e-mail scandal casting doubt on the scientific validity of climate data known as «Climategate,» over 200 world leaders and 25,000 participants in attendance, this year's COP - 15 will surely be one for the ages... stay tuned.

But perhaps the most damaging revelations â $ «the scientific equivalent of the Telegraphâ $ ™ s MPsâ $ ™ expenses scandal â $ «are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

«At the end of last year, Sir John Beddington, a former chief scientific adviser to the British government, lifted the lid on the scandal at the heart of the EU's renewable policies.

It is ironic that this recent denialist group, supposedly championing good science, have had very little effect going through the scientific process, whilst the vast majority of their effectiveness has come from climategate and other media - bolstered scandals.

The New York Times published a doozy of a front - page story by John M. Broder on Wednesday on the Climate-gate scientific fraud scandal.

(btw - the main problem with the students attitude may not be incompetence but simply the fact that they got so used to trust blindly what tv or experts tell them (especially when they appear in groups) and that they can not imagine that there may be something wrong though even current scandals (VW - Diesel) or older failures (ozon - cfc / ice age scare) or even the fact that thousands of scientists were more than willing to change their ideology and citizenship (+ certain scientific believes) as it happened with «operation paperclip.

The CRU e-mail scandal reveals a perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion.

In the aftermath of the Climategate scandal, in order to ensure scientific integrity and regain the public's trust, scientific bodies called on scientists to allow access to their raw data, assumptions, methodologies, and software and to promptly and completely respond to all Freedom of Information Act and government requests for information.

However, a few years later during a scandal which had quite a bit of media coverage, e.g., here or here, the IPCC admitted that the authors had had no scientific basis for making this claim.

That was a bona fide scandal, not only because evading FOIA is unlawful, but also because scientists who deny independent researchers the opportunity to reproduce (invalidate) their results attack the very heart of the scientific enterprise.

As the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media hyper - ventilated over the hacker leaks they referred to as the «Climategate Scandal»; Nature quickly retaliated in defense of Anthropogenic Global Warming with a scathing editorial titled: «Climatologists Under Pressure» stating: «Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.»

But in some ways that's the most amazing thing of all about this extraordinary affair, which must surely represent the biggest peacetime waste of taxpayers money in history, the biggest scientific scandal in history, and the most extravagant and widely promulgated lie in history: the sheer brazenness of these tricksters» enterprise.

It's a bit sad that the first crack developed not under the weight of scientific evidence but as a result of some juicy scandal.

``... Or, it could be because the peer - review process itself has been «corrupted,» as Mr. Harris believes, and that top scientific journals, as revealed in the emails exposed in the 2009 Climategate scandal, actively suppress the work of dissenting researchers...»

84) The «Climate-gate» scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal's editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

The global climate scandal and the crisis in Western science and in Western forms of government have simply confirmed a warning from the former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower — in his farewell address to the nation on 17 Jan 1961 — that a federally funded scientific - technological elite might one day take control of government policy and pose a serious threat to «the supreme goals of our free society»: http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

66) The «Climate-gate» scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a «trick» for the sake of concealing a «decline» in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth's temperature.

That was a bona fide scandal, not only because such conduct is prima facie illegal, but also because scientists who deny independent researchers the opportunity to reproduce (invalidate) their results attack the very heart of the scientific enterprise.

«The Climate Change Act Reconsidered» is of great relevance today in light of scientific scandals and the public's loss of trust in costly green climate and energy policies.

Until we can do that, no amount of scandal and debunking of exaggerated scientific claims will substantially alter the debate.

Scientific American whitewashed the affair, with an interview with Gavin Schmidt, in which he minimized the significance of the scandal, attacked Heartland, and didn't even mention the forgery.

So I don't agree with those who say the warming is all natural, or all driven by the sun, or only an artefact of bad measurement, but nor do I think anything excuses bad scientific practice in support of the carbon dioxide theory, and every time one of these scandals erupts and the scientific establishment asks us to ignore it, I wonder if the extreme sceptics are not on to something.

The true scandal is the attempt to catapult such behavior into high crime and to dismiss an entire scientific endeavour based on the privately expressed sentiments of a few (a very few) researchers working in an environment of ongoing harassment.

While the United States continues the ridiculous debate on the science of climate change (see «Climategate» scandal, which is a result of hacked e-mails from a British research institute, but seems to be getting most play in the United States; but see also this excellent response by the U.S. scientific community organized by a colleague), little such doubt lingers in China, a country governed by technocrats with degrees in engineering and science.

But the climate scandal is broader, international in scope, involving leaders of the political community as well as leaders of the scientific community.

CEI global warming and energy experts have followed ClimateGate closely and observe that the beneficial effects of the scientific fraud scandal have not yet penetrated the political or scientific establishments.