Glaciergate Rating Options

[Timothy Osman]

I can't get enough of the Downfall parody, it seems to make thing official nowadays.



This is peer review at it's finest, get some prick with a ponytail from an activist group like the WWF to say the Himalayan glaciers are about to disappear virtually overnight based on one opinion from a single scientist and massage it into a scientific sounding report. These type of "errors" will be being exposed for years to come as this unravels and the big climb down from Mount Doom takes place.

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri would have us believe this is a case of "slipping up on one number", thus ignoring what the error reveals about the culture of the IPCC, a culture that allowed it to rely on a statement from a WWF environmental campaigning document, which in turn relied on the New Scientist interview with a single scientist. The problem was apparently compounded by the inversion of a date in an earlier paper.

Part of the problem is the IPCC's diffuse and complex system of working groups and review processes. While this may be the only practical way of synthesising thousands of research findings from around the globe into an accessible document for world leaders, the modus operandi builds in significant room for error.

As we have noted before, that is fair enough so long as the shortcomings are recognised by policy-makers. But politicians prefer certainties - not caveats - when they make the case for action on climate change to voters.

The real lesson is that our political leaders must continue to question, probe and analyse the evidence before committing to policies with profound consequences. This is not about letting the IPCC off the hook. Nor is is about denying the science. It is about applying a healthy degree of scepticism to scientific claims that drive policy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opini...x-1225822310448

[Omega892R09]

I can't get enough of the Downfall parody, it seems to make thing official nowadays.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opini...x-1225822310448

It seems that you cannot, get enough of the media spun propaganda crap spewed out by airheads or those on fat kick-backs from mining interests in Oz and elsewhere. If you do not believe that go look at the backgrounds and 'INTERESTS' of the likes of Carter and Plimer.

The Australian has a well earned reputation for spewing junk science.

For the truth in this matter go to the definitive sources rather than Murdochland.

You will find such through this door:

A beat up of Himalayan proportions

Newspapers such as the London Times are reporting that the IPCC is about to retract something from the AR4 WG2 report:

A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

The claim was indeed wrong. John Nielsen-Gammon has written a detailed analysis of the error with an update here. I've discovered a bit more about it, which I will get to presently, but first I want to look at the Times statement that it was a "central claim" and the New York Times statement that it was a "much-publicized estimate".

Actually, the estimate does not appear in the WG2 summary and was mostly ignored by the media when the report came out. The Times story on the WG2 did not mention the estimate at all -- their story about the mistake is actually longer than their story about the release of the report.

I did a Factiva search for news stories that mentioned Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 and found 198 (not counting duplicates). But the majority of these were recent stories about the IPCC mistake. Only a handful of others attributed the estimate to the IPCC report (even though there were hundreds of stories about the report). More common were stories based on the 1999 New Scientist story, like this one in The Times which makes the same mistake as the IPCC, reporting:

Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years because of global warming, according to a research study. ... One of the researchers involved, Syed Hasnain, of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said studies indicate that the glaciers in the region could be gone by 2035.

This is not to excuse the IPCC's error -- we expect higher standards from them than from the The Times.

John Nielsen-Gammon notes something else that The Times got wrong:

I am quite dismayed by the last paragraph of the Times Online article:

"The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. ..."

Latest crack in the consensus??? The whole point is that the IPCC report didn't reflect the consensus. The consensus, as far as we know, was right all along. And the Working Group 1 report of the IPCC reflected that consensus, with solid references to the peer-reviewed literature. The lesson here is that the IPCC does not deserve blanket trust for what they write; their reports are only as good as the references on which they're based. And if the author had stuck to the IPCC's own protocols for relying on the peer-reviewed literature, this mistake would never have been made in the firsts place.

Of course, global warming deniers seized on the error to argue that the IPCC can't be trusted

The Opposition energy spokesman, Nick Minchin, a climate change sceptic, said the report highlighted the ''disturbing'' lack of scientific rigour around the IPCC 2007 report.

"These revelations provide even further evidence of the Rudd Government's recklessness in relying on dubious reports such as this as part of its scare campaign to push the urgent need to introduce a CPRS [emissions trading scheme] ahead of the world," Senator Minchin said.

But if even relatively obscure errors in the IPCC reports get corrected, that should increase our confidence in the accuracy of the more prominent statements.

And somehow Minchin's confidence in someone like Ian Plimer is unshakeable, despite Plimer's refusal to correct even the most blatant errors.

And deniers are also pretending that this error proves that Himalayan glaciers aren't melting. For instance, The Australian's Cut and Paste:

See the iceman leaveth. George Monbiot, in The Guardian on May 10, 2005, on why David Bellamy was wrong to suggest glaciers were not shrinking:

"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost journals."

Or more likely stayeth. The Australian yesterday:

Flawed communication between teams of scientists caused the UN climate change agency to claim most Himalayan glaciers would melt almost 300 years earlier than forecast, glaciologists claim.

So, how can we find out what went wrong with the editing of the IPCC report? Fortunately the drafts and review comments are available on-line. In the second draft the offending passage states:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in other any part of the world (see Table 10.10 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035.

There was no cite at all for the claim and more than one reviewer noted that a citation was needed. If the chapter authors had followed this comment, all would have been well:

I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding - and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in precipitation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.'s 2005 Nature paper here - this seems very similar to what they said. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)

But the response was this:

Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version

Instead the authors added to a cite to this WWF report, which says

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high".

And here we see the perils of lazy citing. The IPCC report should have cited the WGHG/ICSI report, but the authors weren't able to get hold of it. If they had, they would have found that it doesn't say anything about the glaciers disappearing by 2035. The WWF report authors hadn't seen the WGHG report either, but relied on this New Scientist story, by a reporter that hadn't seen the report either, but had talked to the author of the WGHG report.

See also comments from John Quiggin and James Hrynyshyn.

Blue texts indicate links at the original. Please take the trouble to follow before responding and don't bother with anything from WUWT. Watts is about to go down the toilet.

Now Tim, please promise me that you will keep up, I have been away for a few days at my mother's funeral and knew about this propaganda effort before I left. What is your excuse for shoddy posting?

BTW Search at Deltoid for info on Plimer and Monckton too for he continues to make a fool of himself. I think that latter is about to self-destruct as Plimer did earlier.

BBTW. Record temps in the US over January 2010 I see. That is the problem with climate change.

[Sanders]

BBTW. Record temps in the US over January 2010 I see. That is the problem with climate change.

Record COLD temps, I assume you mean?

How does that square with "global warming"? Forgive me for recalling that the whole climate change scare is that the earth will warm. How do record cold temperatures support that scenario?

No, wait, I'll answer that for you - they don't.

You can't just wave a wand and declare that record cold-temps support a scenario whereby the world is warming up.

[Omega892R09]

Record COLD temps, I assume you mean?

Nope:

Warmest January in Seattle History?

The query being there only because January 2010 has net yet played out.

Then of course there is this:

Preparing For Frankenstorms: “The most powerful low pressure system in 140 years of record keeping” slams the Southwest.

The weather systems are increasing in energy - coming from all that warmer water - and water content which having then collided with cold air chilled by ice-melt in the Arctic dumps snow all over.

How does that square with "global warming"? Forgive me for recalling that the whole climate change scare is that the earth will warm. How do record cold temperatures support that scenario?

As I keep telling you most of the world has warmed with the poles warming much, much more. Sure a few places have shown a colder turn but these are comparatively small in total area. If you had watched the video I had cited you would be aware of that through a NOAA chart demonstrated.

The oceans have warmed appreciably. That is a measured fact and it takes a considerable amount of heat energy to warm water. Why do you think water is used in heating and cooling systems?

The reason that you don't get this is because you have not studied any of the science despite by pointed citations to sources for doing so with some of these sources available on the net e.g. the David Archer lectures.

No, wait, I'll answer that for you - they don't.

Now, please, please, please, before you continue just do a little diligent research eh!

[lunk]

Nope:

Warmest January in Seattle History?

The query being there only because January 2010 has net yet played out.

Then of course there is this:

Preparing For Frankenstorms: “The most powerful low pressure system in 140 years of record keeping” slams the Southwest.

The weather systems are increasing in energy - coming from all that warmer water - and water content which having then collided with cold air chilled by ice-melt in the Arctic dumps snow all over.


As I keep telling you most of the world has warmed with the poles warming much, much more. Sure a few places have shown a colder turn but these are comparatively small in total area. If you had watched the video I had cited you would be aware of that through a NOAA chart demonstrated.

The oceans have warmed appreciably. That is a measured fact and it takes a considerable amount of heat energy to warm water. Why do you think water is used in heating and cooling systems?

The reason that you don't get this is because you have not studied any of the science despite by pointed citations to sources for doing so with some of these sources available on the net e.g. the David Archer lectures.

No, wait, I'll answer that for you - they don't.

Now, please, please, please, before you continue just do a little diligent research eh!

Omega, you seem to be confusing local weather anomilies with your cooling climate trend that used to be known as human caused global warming.

[Omega892R09]

Omega, you seem to be confusing local weather anomilies with your cooling climate trend that used to be known as human caused global warming.

Not at all.

If you think about the two cases presented in the wider context of how the global energy and other systems interact.

[GroundPounder]

there were 1200 record cold temps and snowfall between dec30-jan6 in the continental us..yeah that's global warming alright. some sort of newspeak doublethink like war=peace right?

[Sanders]

The oceans have warmed appreciably...

Yeah, right. Mean ocean temps are and have for many years been going DOWN. Albeit slightly, but down, not up.

The reason that you don't get this is because you have not studied any of the science despite by pointed citations to sources for doing so with some of these sources available...

Ever heard of Climate-gate? Your sources are tainted.

[Timothy Osman]

[quote]And here we see the perils of lazy citing. The IPCC report should have cited the WGHG/ICSI report, but the authors weren't able to get hold of it. If they had, they would have found that it doesn't say anything about the glaciers disappearing by 2035. The WWF report authors hadn't seen the WGHG report either, but relied on this New Scientist story, by a reporter that hadn't seen the report either, but had talked to the author of the WGHG report.
/quote]

No Omega, despite your best efforts at spinning this around like a presidential press secretary into a little tiny weeny booboo by a trusted and scientifically August body of the most disciplined, incorruptible, hard working, saviors of Earth the truth is nearer my mark. A prick with a pony tail passed on some crap about glaciers and a prick in a cardigan let it through so the pricks in thousand dollar suits could have their way. It aint fuckin rocket surgery.

As for me being behind, well yeah I am behind, we all are because we have to keep arguing the toss point by point with people that have been duped. We damn well should be talking about why they're doing this, how they're doing this and most importantly how to bloody stop them.

This is some of the WWF citations used in the IPCC report as found in a few hours of searching by a blogger.


[quote]Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change - agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as "Allianz" above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/...climate_savers/ index.cfm
Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland/quote]

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/20...el-winning.html

WWF are the ones responsible for this kind of alarmist propaganda, they made Mount Doom out of crap like this and unfortunately you're up there spinning around.

(IMG:http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i295/sedman/911tsunami-large.jpg)

[albertchampion]

there is something happening with the weather, though.

i can only relate my anecdotal observations.

i have lived in metro-houston, tx for almost 40 years. until 10-12 years ago, we used to get some days of constant light rain. and then that stopped. we no longer get days[hours] of light rain.

what we have been getting for the last decade is bouts of violent weather. instead of 1/2 inch over 12 hours, we now get 1/2 plus in less than 1 hour. then it ends.

this is abnormal in my experience. when i first moved here, in the summer, we would get an evening tropical thunderstorm. almost daily. that ended as northern harris county became concreted, housed in the early 1980's.

urbanization would seem to have altered weather patterns.

irrevocably.

the topic that goes unaddressed mostly is the temperature of the gulf stream current. if, and when, the gulf stream temps take a tumble, europe will freeze in the dark. and if that should happen, i think it may be the result of arctic glacier melt. caused by warming.

well, the gulf stream and its currents are little understood, i think. but i wonder what a charge of freshwater glacial melt might do to that current - the current that moderates europes winger temps.

[Omega892R09]

Yeah, right. Mean ocean temps are and have for many years been going DOWN. Albeit slightly, but down, not up.

And your source for that information is....?

Now look here:

The year climate science caught up with what top scientists have been saying privately for years

Read that and take the trouble to follow links.

There is much more for your education if only you took as much trouble to investigate as you do with the Dragon Blood Line.

Ever heard of Climate-gate? Your sources are tainted.

Don't be so perverse!

You know I have heard of climatgate vapourgate for I have demonstrated why the cherry picked emails have been distorted by omission and lack of context.

When I have asked for critics here to be specific nobody had the decency to follow up.

My sources are tainted eh! And yet your sources appear non-existent.

[Omega892R09]

No Omega, despite your best efforts at spinning this around like a presidential press secretary into a little tiny weeny booboo by a trusted and scientifically August body of the most disciplined, incorruptible, hard working, saviors of Earth the truth is nearer my mark. A prick with a pony tail passed on some crap about glaciers and a prick in a cardigan let it through so the pricks in thousand dollar suits could have their way. It aint fuckin rocket surgery.

Why should I bother replying to a no-hoper who cannot even write without littering the place with expletives?

We see now who the real papa romeo india charlie kilo is eh!

If you had bothered to actually follow the story with an open mind then you would not have felt the need to fulminate all over the place.

Question.

Have you tried grasping the science behind what makes the earth's systems tick?

I suggest starting with James Lovelock a scientist who deserves considerable respect and this book explains why:

He Knew He Was Right: The Irrepressible Life of James Lovelock and Gaia

and follow up with some of his later books e.g. The Revenge of Gaia.

I can appreciate Lovelock's message because of my grounding in the sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. I have also immersed myself in evolution and oceanography all of which allow the bigger picture to be appreciated from putting together all the small pieces from the many disparate fields of science.

I have you to thank for pushing me into finding out more about Lovelock after the maligning you gave him in a thread here last year.

To be ignorant is excusable but to persist in behaving in an ignorant manner is inexcusable so please, for your own sake, repair your ways.

[Omega892R09]

there were 1200 record cold temps and snowfall between dec30-jan6 in the continental us..yeah that's global warming alright. some sort of newspeak doublethink like war=peace right?

As I have repeated

go and study the science behind the earth's systems.

Some points to consider:

The arctic has warmed. Much ice has melted.

Consider the latent heat involved in that state change of huge quantities of ice.

Where did that heat come from?

Where did all that heat energy end up?

Then what happened to that heat energy?

Check out the meaning of insensible heat.

Temperature is not a direct measure of heat energy content.

Because some points were colder does not mean that the average global temperature has ceased rising.

Now look at this:

Met Office: “It is not cold everywhere in the world.”

and there is plenty more where that came from as well as many other sources to back that up.

PS. I do hope that those engaged in this discussion do bother to also read my replies to others than the direct respondent.

EDIT: Duplicate line from copy move deleted.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 29 2010, 08:56 AM

[lunk]

Omega,
I got to admire someone who can stand up, in favor of a topic
that everyone else has become extremely suspicious about.

and i got to agree that TO could try to utilize certain words,
with a little more restraint.
Though i certainly understand, frustration, sometimes.

[GroundPounder]

Because some points were colder does not mean that the average global temperature has ceased rising.

first off, the assumption is that it has been rising and the second assumption is that it hasn't ceased. yawn, bored now.

Met Office: “It is not cold everywhere in the world.”

they are reputable according to Time magazine. oh my, that's all the proof anybody needs. Time magazine is of course the definitive judge of all things reputable. The main stream media certifying the main stream media. a giant circle jerk. thanks, i won't be buying that.

[Timothy Osman]

Omega,
I got to admire someone who can stand up, in favor of a topic
that everyone else has become extremely suspicious about.

and i got to agree that TO could try to utilize certain words,
with a little more restraint.
Though i certainly understand, frustration, sometimes.

I don't admire it, I find it rediculous and suspicious, there is absolutely no need for Omega to respond to anything I post. The original post of this thread was aimed at no one except those with a broad interest in the truth, it was started in humour to point to an actual event that is taking place. If Omega chooses to jump on board with his usual spin and endeavor to defend criminals caught red handed in a lie and a fraud i will damned well use the language invented by the very Royal Navy this bloke actually claims to have served in.

[Timothy Osman]

They must be getting desperate, Osama is jumping on board.

[quote]"The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink," he said. "World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism."
To stop global warming, he called for the "wheels of the American economy" to be brought to a halt. "This is possible ... if the peoples of the world stop consuming American goods."
"We must also stop dealings in the dollar and get rid of it as soon as possible," he said. "I know that this has great consequences and grave ramifications, but it is the only means to liberate humanity from slavery and dependence on America."
He also called for the "punishing and holding to account" of corporation chiefs, adding, "this should be easy for the American people to do, particularly those who were effected by Hurricane Katrina or those who lost their jobs, since these criminals live among them, particularly in Washington, New York and Texas."
The message represents a honing of al-Qaida's rhetoric. In 2007, bin Laden issued a tape in which he warned that human life is endangered by global warning, and he blamed democratic systems for seeking the interests of major corporations, said the U.S.-based Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamic militant message traffic.
But in Friday's message, the anti-democracy rhetoric is dropped.
"It's populism, pure and simple," Kohlmann said. /quote]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHLR3G0.html

People need to understand that they're finished with our democracy's, particularly the US version. They don't really care how they bring the changes in, the velvet glove approach of the left or the bare knuckles of the right,
either way we're headed for an authoritarian world government and each faction is working toward that ultimate goal. The only weapon we have against that plan is the dissemination of the truth, not to be caught up in phony left right squabbles but listen for the truth when you hear it, it could come from anywhere.

[Omega892R09]

They must be getting desperate, Osama is jumping on board.

You are easily duped - like Rush Limbaugh.

Osama.

That would be the same Osama that probably died a few years back.

Osama of al-Qaida - that organisation created to fill in as an enemy instead of the Big Bear.

Dough!

Open another can o' Duff beer Tim.

EDIT: Added:

Look here Tim,

Limbaugh, Fox News suckered by Bin Laden into repeating his disinformation and message of hatred

Of course ol' Rush Limpbrain thinks Bin Laden is still alive.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jan 30 2010, 01:16 PM

[Omega892R09]

Omega,
I got to admire someone who can stand up, in favor of a topic
that everyone else has become extremely suspicious about.

Everyone else!

Who is everyone else?

Those suspicious have not studied the sciences that make the earth tick. They would rather believe the like of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and other paid shills of corporate fossil fuel interests.

Simple as that!

Shame. You will all have to wake up one day.

[Omega892R09]

I don't admire it, I find it rediculous and suspicious, there is absolutely no need for Omega to respond to anything I post.

When you resort to posting unadulterated BS propaganda there is no alternative.

To act as if nothing had happened would be a neglect of duty, duty to my kids, their kids, and all the other kids around the world who will pay the price for your blind following of paid shills of the fossil fuel industries.

Try to study some of the science rather than keep repeating inane tosh spewed out by the devious bastids who want you to believe without understanding. Why you chose to believe the same stuff as the Fox lot I don't know. Clear case of cognitive dissonance there I think.

The original post of this thread was aimed at no one except those with a broad interest in the truth,

You will only discover the truth about this topic when you tackle the science in an honest and open minded manner.

Try it.

it was started in humour to point to an actual event that is taking place. If Omega chooses to jump on board with his usual spin and endeavor to defend criminals caught red handed in a lie and a fraud i will damned well use the language invented by the very Royal Navy this bloke actually claims to have served in.

Farce followed by innuendo.

Sure I could use some language that would probably even make your ears curl, after all there is no 'actually claims' about it.

It seems that you cannot respond to anything in a calm and rational manner. Maybe that is why you keep clear of the real science.

No scientists have acted in a criminal manner, which is more than can be said for those who filched e-mails and then quote mined and distorted them.