[Rocky]

Every time you post one of your satirical articles, half the responders take it seriously. The articles are perhaps too close to truth.

[wastedyears]

LOL This is a good one John.

[ThunderSleeps]

Ok then sport...er... "prof"... You would think this would be basic science, basic research 101. But apparently the climate "scientists" need a reminder.

I develop software for large scale computer modelling of complex systems for a living. (different domain though) You want to be taken seriously as a modeller, you have to at least do the following:

• Show us the original, unaltered data - all of it.
• Show us the data that has been excluded from studies and analysis, including the scientific, mathematical justification for such an exclusion. This should include counter arguments for including the data, and why they are not accepted. Include in your report the with and without cases for this data so that we may see the sensitivity of the results to this data.
• Show us the adjustments to the data analysed, including the supporting justifications for every adjustment. Include the counter proposals and theories on what adjustments should, or should not be included. Include in the final report analysis done with alternative adjustments so that we may see the sensitivity of the results to the adjustments.
• Publish all source code and algorithms for processing the data. Allow, even encourage others to duplicate your results. Follow ISO and CMMI processes/certification protocols in the development and documentation of your software.
• Publish all results, even those that do not agree with your original thesis.

What would these profs, academics etc. do if a doctorate candidate came to them with his/her thesis but had pulled the kind of {excrement} the so-called climate scientists have pulled (and continue to try to pull) on the world? Said candidate would be run out of the program and booted from the College/University. Many of the "scientists" involved in this scam should be at least censured, if not fired for scientific and academic fraud. I would not want to be associated with any higher learning institution or research company associated with this fiasco.

[Corporate Law]

It is a hoax “Professor”.

[FreeperFlirt]

Governor Palin is said to have misconstrued are the words “bogus,” “misleading,” and “cooked” numbers. Sounds good to me, Obozo would have said “you can trust us” you betcha we cant, notice how long obozo nose is now?

[sodpoodle]

Thanks JS

In the North East witnessing 25 inches of their GW SNOW JOB!!!!!

[writer33]

Funny, John. Thanks for posting it.

[Hacklehead]

“Confounding or contradictory data could prove deadly to the fate of a funding request,” Mann continued. “Cooking the numbers, suppressing nonconforming evidence and misleading prospective donors are minor transgressions compared to the alternative of tapped-out funding.”

I’m a scientist and I can tell you that what Mann describes in the above paragraph constitutes FRAUD. I know of scientists who have been FIRED from their jobs for such behavior. Its very enlightening to see that the warmists think of it as normal.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Good one!

[rockinqsranch]

Thanks for the chuckle once again John.

[oldteen]

Thanks John. It’s getting VERY hard to tell which part is satire.

[Smokin' Joe]

Didn’t I hear that on CNN while surfing through? Wow, that’s frighteningly close to reality!

[TheVitaminPress]

I keep having to remind myself this is just satire. Interesting times.

[3D-JOY]

Finally checking the mail on Sunday night. Sorry to be so slow in telling you...You done it again, FRiend!

[WayneS]

Sometimes it’s like shooting fish in a barrel these days, isn’t it Mr. Semmens?