The stats and data are rarely compromised
10k scientists tend to disagree with that buddy.
- it's just selective as to what data is interpreted and presented as relevant to any specific case. The problem with global warming is not that the data is biast but that only one side is presented (data is always objective unless people deliberately design experiments to bias their data - other scientists immediately recognise this though and their experiments are usually always discredited).
You speak as if global warming research is the only thing tainted hutch. Here, read this and pay attention to the words in bold:
"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."
Hutch, can you please explain to the board why you chose to focus on global warming when the article clearly states there has been an increase of bad science in a number of fields/issues?
The problem is that the media, based on what the government tell them to do, always present a single side of the story, the one which benefits the government. In relation to global climate change, nearly every single study in the past 20 years has shown that 'humans are most likely the cause of the increase in global mean temperatures', however there have been a few studies which were poorly undertaken which conclude the opposite. The government uses these studies to 'show' that science discredits the now universally accepted notion that humans are responsible for climate change. If everyone knew how to 'read' science, they would realise this. Unfortunately, the majority of the American public know few details about this science and rely on a laymans summary - all of which come from biast news sources.
SEE ABOVE.
Should we accept the fact that data was only comprimised in one area, or should we question the validity any research that could have been influenced by the government? The fact is, the numbers and data have been manipulated in several areas, and it isn't far fetched to believe that the results you and others cling to may have been compromised.
The government not only selects which studies are presented to support it's case, they also prevent studies which refute their claims from being published until they want them to. I can't remember the specifics, but there is an Island off Alaska which is made of ice where several people live. Recent studies have shown that the ice is melting at a fantastic rate and that global climate change is to blame. Bush forced the scientists to withhold their data until after the elections because it would reflect badly on their environmental policies.
That ice can melt, flood your home and some of the members here can drown in it. Do you think I care? No. The point is any field of science that the government had a hand in is subject to severe skepticism. You can throw the media in this all you want, you can make an issue of global warming, but you and I both know it doesn't make a difference. 10,000 didn't just protest global warming data and how it has been compromised. 10,000 scientists protested "political interference in the scientific process."
