Quote:Looking at the list of "societies", "associations" and "unions" it would be interesting to "follow the money". I would wager that at least half of these groups are pretty much liberal "think" tanks that siphon money from the American people. I wonder how many of those groups actually "fudge" their data in order to keep the money flowing?


Also, I'm not exactly clear on why NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Administration) would even be involved in <del>global warming</del> climate change. I suspect that the answer lies with my first statement. Follow the money. Rather than research and develop means to explore Space, they are now tasked to "research" <del>global warming</del> climate change.

Go ahead and vett those agencies. I think you will be surprised they are actual science agencies doin actual science as opposed to right wing think tanks coming up with talking points in opposition of the science.


The reason NASA is working on this issue is fairly self-evident. What is goin on in the atmosphere (do you believe in that?) has a lot to do with global warming. Naturally, some of the brightest minds studying the atmosphere are at NASA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (get it? get it?), to figure out the correlation.


But no, you're right, NASA is evil.


And they are all fudging their data. Cause you can do that. It's not like there is a process of peer review or a highly competitive market for getting published in these prestigious science journals whose credibility is necessarily contingent on the content of their pages.


You have a programming background. Can you fudge the data behind a program? Is that something that can happen? Or will the program simply not work correctly if not coded correctly? You can't lie via science. It's mostly math. All there in black and white. There is no where to fudge anything and furthermore no reason to.

---