On 11/02/2015 2:19 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:13 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/02/2015 12:55 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote:
On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote:
Who would have thunk it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html






Hi Frank,

This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately
not the first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation
or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a
predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias,
often related to social or political objectives"

Anyone that disagreed with Lysenko simply disappeared. With
this scandal, you just get public ridicule and lose your job.

Politics needs to butt out of science.

-T

Exactly.

Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists
will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their
own careers.

More slurs and insinuations.

Do you have any (even halfway) reputable cites to support your slurs in
relation to the cupidity of scientists? And since we've been discussing
climate science, I'd be particularly interested to see some cites that
can stand up to even a cursory scrutiny on the culpability of climate
scientists.


I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot.


No, you wouldn't see any sense in doing that because you can't. Slurs
and insinuations are your game but you don't even make sense when you
use them.

You and T have just been ranting on about 'keeping politics out of it'
and you even state that lies are used to please bosses. Shame that you
throw those comments in without being capable of applying that to your
own cite.

YOU posted the link to the Telegraph UK article and one simple google
search shows up both the politics behind that article (right wing,
conservative and Conservative Party) and the "please the bosses by
telling lies" role of the journalist.

YOU show all the signs of being a religious/political zealot. You
aren't prepared to investigate your beliefs nor to analyse what you do
post or to defend your stance based on evidence.