NYT: Crack Down on Scientific Fraudsters

I think Jim Steele is being a bit generous when he suggests that a minority of scientists are fraudsters.
In numbers of scientists deliberately fraudulent he is probaly somewhere near correct but take a look at there the main centres of fraud in the climate alarmist business exists.
We only have to look at the highest echelons of climate science such as the CRU Climate Gate mails and the subsequent dismemberment of Hockey Stick as a rank fraud by Steve McIntyre [ who should be the one to be in line to get a Nobel ] on the Hockey Stick , a scientific fraud and debacle that has few equals in both past science history and in it’s entirely negative impact on every aspect of our society as the ideologically and crassly bigoted sectors of our society took the Hockey Stick up with gusto and tried to use it to enforce their dictatorial ideology and dogma onm to the rest of our society across the globe.
Now we are seeing a similar performance from the NCDC [ and GISS ] in the manner in which it is constantly “adjusting” both today’s temperatures and the temperatures from many decades past on a daily basis.
It is using “estimated” temperatures for stations that have not operated for decades. It is infilling temperatures for places where there are no records. It uses hypothetical stations, Zombie stations as a part of the supposed temperatures reigning today and it does all of this “adjustment” “estimation” and inventing of temperatures while selling the public the claim that these are the real actual recorded temperatures which have been recorded over the decades past.
If that type of deliberate fraud, the quite deliberate claims directed at the public aby the
NCDC and GISS about the accuracy and the actuality of the supposedly recorded data when that temperature data is entirely based on constantly adjusted, kreiged, infilled, zombied and etc data is deliberately sold to the public without any caveats or explanations about the data’s origins then that ranks as outright fraud .
And this from the central clearing house for global temperature data, the NCDC.
And then on the basis of those often spurious adjustments, infilled, zombied, krieged and etc included stations any and all temperatures that are supposedly higher than the NCDC and GISS adjusted temperature data for any particular day in any particular location are immediately hailed as proof of some sort of catastrophic warming under way.
As one ages we start to look back on our lives and what we have done and accomplished and for many, wonder as to how history will regard us.
For many high profile alarmist climate scientists and for their innumerable running dogs in the media and green eviro-loon movement, if and as now seems probable, a significant global cooling gets under way over the next few decades, history is going to treat the reputations of so many of those ideologically and dogma fixated scientists very harshly indeed.
If that cooling is confirmed within the next half a decade or so then most of them will go to their graves with the full knowledge that they were utterly wrong in their climate catastrophe fixation and were responsible for one of the worst debacles of corruption of science’s basic principles and impartiality that modern science and the world has ever been seen .
Plus creating untold misery and innumerable quite avoidable deaths from the very corrupted cause they so heavily promoted, that of a catastrophic global warming.
Very few of them indeed will have had the cojones and honesty to admit they were dramatically wrong and have the courage to humbly apologise and try and make good the immense harm they have done to society, to economies of entire nations, to individuals and to humanity by their rigidity and fixation with a claimed phenomena for which there never ever was any proof that it ever existed.
And that is scientific fraud on a scale that has never been seen before with only the Ozone hole affair approaching it where as James Lovelock has claimed, an estimated 80% of science papers had fraudulent and altered and made up data included.
Perhaps it would be wise for climate scientists if they ever wish to try and retrieve a semblence of their reputations to take cognizance of Phaedrus and Sophocles
“Whoever is detected in a shameful fraud is ever after not believed even if they speak the truth”.
Phaedrus
“Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud.”
Sophocles

Okay, I just did a test. The comment was immediately deleted.
WUWT is still deleting comments that reflect “real science”.
I just need to keep a record of screen shots.
(Sorry rogerknights, you are just a victim.)

A critique of the US False Claims Act would be a wonderful subject for a few science conferences. It should scare the wee wee out of some well know scientists. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act

Without fraudsters the NYT would lose the source of their best material.

Scientific opinion should always be challenged. What has been happening on climate change however is that opinion, and fact, are being confused, and fact is often being challenged, usually with opinion.
I was once a practicing lawyer, and a good one, and know that If you want to believe something hard enough, or simply argue for it, you can come up with anything. Here is a classic example http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/the-spirit-of-the-atlantic-surveys-his-realm/, where the author (a commenter above on this very post) goes on for several pages, sounding like a highfalutin scientific adventurer of centuries past, yet says absolute nothing of scientific relevancy, let alone relevant to the actual issue of climate change itself, and then out of that morass makes a startling leap of conclusion that has no more basis than if it were uttered in a meaningless simple sentence “uh, the earth is warming because of solar cycles. Or his neighbor’s cat. It belies no understanding of the issue. And yet sounds great. So if you want to believe, why, read this highfalutin piece, and here is yet more great sounding (but meaningless) “evidence” of what a bunch of crockheads the many scientists who say “hey, um, we shouldn’t be changing our atmosphere this way,” really are; just — even those not grabbing any research funding — a bunch of research funding grabbing do do heads!
The plain fact, hidden to some, is that there is a lot of drive to believe that Radical Atmospheric Change is overblown. Then interpretations slotted in to reinforce and support that belief. (Again, I refer you to the above link,which while well written, and a fun read, serves as a caricature; a mind struggling, reeling, to find a way to believe, to justify, that climate change is nary much more than a hoax of overblown hooey, and convincing itself of that fact that it wants to know, and thus does know, in the process.) The argument that the belief based drive extends in the other direction, is often far fetched, and when valid, a mere pittance of the enormous corporate interests with a short term fealty toward not upsetting their nice imbalance, and leveling the playing field for energy processes and sources whose true costs are a micro-fraction of theirs, but that don’t get integrated into our economic picture.
The opposite argument, that money drives scientists on this, is akin to saying all science is bad, because scientists (unique, I guess, among human professions) are paid. Book writers and researchers, are never to be believed, because, well. “they are writing a book.” The reality being that only of course applies to those one does not want to believe. Otherwise this argument applies equally to all. To everything. And everybody.
I am also often a dissenter from, and challenger of, conventional wisdom. I disagree with some of the conventional wisdom on this atmospheric problem, as well. The basic underlying issue however is one of fact, and it’s somehow been turned into one of opinion by scientists who don’t really understand the issue, and those who don’t want to accept that, yes, we can radically if inadvertently alter the world that houses us, in ways that might be extremely counter productive. And that, yes, based upon very basic facts that are almost never properly articulated, we are doing that, right now, on a geologically radical level.
This is something that few people understand, because they don’t understand the basic issue; because it is almost never properly explained, and what little cogent assertion exists, is drowned out in a sea of both anti science propaganda (or heart felt but misinformed belief) or dismissive, conclusionary, belittlement rather than illumination, by those who know about and are thus legitimately concerned over the issue, speaking to others who are so, rather than instead, as they should, to everybody, at large.
Does the author of this post even know what the real “Climate Change” issue is? I would heavily doubt it — as most people don’t, and almost all detractors do not. All of which is understandable in a world where anything can be printed on the Internet and called fact, and amidst the sea of misinformation we are awash in on this topic, the sea of rhetoric posing as sound logic, or worse, scientific reasoning, and where the sea of desire to push a point, and the unfortunate tie to heavy political interpretation, even economic belief, about what is in fact a purely scientific (and fascinating) issue, is enormous. But I challenge the author of this piece, or really of just about any post on here, to an open discussion, or debate, on the the actual issue itself; what it is, what it is not, why it is a problem, and why, it is not. With everything written down, and presented unedited. With time to check sources, evaluate the logic and the science given, and respond to what has specifically been written, and hold it all, accountable.
It just might be too revealing, or too scary, for a site that is profoundly convinced that it has the big truth that the majority of the world’s scientists don’t see (which does happen from time to time) but that yet repeatedly and continually misconstrues, and misrepresents on, the basic issue, time and time again. IS this not true? Then let’s have that open discussion, and get down to the nitty gritty of what this issue is, what it is not, and what is fact, and what is not, and what “opinions” that may be had, are actually based on, and their scientific logic, and let us see.
And to those who really want to learn about the issue, and not push an agenda, I ask you to join me, and others, in learning about it.

To promote political Agendas, radical change of society, global governance, etc..they have put huge piles of money on the table for those willing to produce policy based science results that support UNFCCC and EPA lookalike agencies?