Quote:This is what happens when you're an honest scientist in the 0bama administration...

 

http://pamelageller.com/2016/12/obama-ad...ress.html/

 

Not political?

 

Imaginationland.

 

Those who believe in such junk science are the ones wearing tin foil hats, afraid to leave their homes in fear that man has turned our climate against us.

 

Science is not science when hypotheses are forced, with the outcome not only expected but guaranteed by unscientific methodology.  Honest data and methodology guides us to conclusions.  True science does not dream up unsubstantiated, pre-determined conclusions and hold only data that is purposefully manipulated and even manufactured to support the false premise (dishonest hypothesis.)

 

You do not "prove" man made change by believing it first then looking for "evidence" to back-fill that unsubstantiated claim.  That's the opposite of science.  It's seeking validation of a pre-drawn conclusion.

 

 

I couldn't wait to get back and respond to your post. If something doesn't immediately confirm your own biases you automatically dismiss it. You should stop acting like you actually have credibility when it comes to science. What expertise do you have? How many papers have you published? How many papers have you peer reviewed? How many committees have you served on to oversee research? What scientific field do you work in and how long have you worked in it? I've studied environmental sciences and public health since 2004. I've been a scientist since 2009. I think I know a bit more about the actual scientific process, as I use it everyday in my line of work. You only pretend to know and use junk political websites to support your own conspiracy theories. 

 

By the way in regards to the firing none of it proves that climate science in general is seeking validation for pre-drawn conclusions. Your article is a red herring. Dr. Noelle Metting was improperly fired by DOE because she advocated for her low-dose radiation research at the behest of DOE officials who wanted to shut the program down. The reason they wanted to shut down the program, and shift funds to other areas including climate research is because current research has revealed that no significantly low dose of radiation is small enough to eliminate the risk of cancer. In layman's terms, there is always a risk of cancer regardless of the radiation dosage. Now the DOE was absolutely wrong in how they handled this situation but saying they did it just to fund climate research is a serious stretch. I wouldn't expect anything else from a climate change denier though.

---