The top 10 most outrageous science hoaxes of 2016

Not a good source bro. smh

I will add that there is a small problem with certain science though... if a scientist comes up with anything new that challenges what we're all supposed to know, they're pressured to keep their mouths (keyboards?) shut in fear of losing their grant money. Not saying they do, though, as we've discovered some pretty amazing stuff and they're talking, but the pressure is still there, just remember that.

a reply to: Metallicus

No.

The political polling was fairly accurate for determining the popular vote which is all it can measure to begin with.

SCIENCE told people to stop freaking out about Zika. Alex Jones types kept people afraid.

SCIENCE had nothing to do with Michigan's corrupt government refusing to stand against the right wing plot to privatize water.

a reply to: hellobruce

You should go point by point and explain and disprove.

a reply to: servovenford

Grant money is given out had over fist for ideas that go against current understanding (assuming the idea had merit, of course).

I only ever hear people who have never worked in academia/research claiming that scientists are pressured to maintain the status quo. The reality is literally the complete opposite.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: servovenford

Grant money is given out had over fist for ideas that go against current understanding (assuming the idea had merit, of course).

I only ever hear people who have never worked in academia/research claiming that scientists are pressured to maintain the status quo. The reality is literally the complete opposite.

Not so,
The second batch of climatgate e-mails says it all.
Extract,

'Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming
5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'
Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'
Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'
By Rob Waugh
UPDATED: 08:53, 28 November 2011
the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.
And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.
One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.
The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.
‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.
Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.
'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... nsors.html#ixzz4ULAojeTr

a reply to: smurfy

That's the Daily Mail's spin, they're paid to serve the conservative agenda including climate change denial. If you read the actual emails in context you will see nothing but harmless correspondence.

I don't have links anymore but ALL the emails are a hosted somewhere.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

That's the Daily Mail's spin, they're paid to serve the conservative agenda including climate change denial. If you read the actual emails in context you will see nothing but harmless correspondence.

I don't have links anymore but ALL the emails are a hosted somewhere.

I know all about the Daily Fail, but in this case they are not misquotes, and they are not innocent.
Here's one that shows a policy of politicising any report from the IPCC, like leaving 'stuff' out if it doesn't suit the message.

"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out of IPCC reports", writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

a reply to: smurfy

That's actually really good information. I'm not in the science field but a guy I used to talk to was telling me that guys lost their grants for being too "out there".

Very interesting... I had a feeling there was more to it.

a reply to: smurfy

If you get your climate science from anti-science denial sites, sure. I mean, the icing on the cake is you citing the daily mail.

Thank you for proving my point.

a reply to: smurfy

Yes, a strategy to circumvent the absurd amounts of disinformation thrown out by the right.

a reply to: GetHyped

anti-science denial sites,

shouldnt an anti science denial site

denounce // deny " anti scientific ideology "

its late - i is drunk - should i stop drinking or have another ?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

Yes, a strategy to circumvent the absurd amounts of disinformation thrown out by the right.

I am not a righty! stop the politic, and like I said to you and now the other poster who wants to make mileage out of it, I know what the Daily Mail is since I live here. However the Daily Mail page is there since 2011, it hasn't been retracted or edited or watered down, and in any case it's not hard to find other handy alternatives with the same observations. Don't forget either that Professor Phil Jones was kicked sideways at the CRU, after climategate 1 then he retired not much later.

a reply to: smurfy

I wasn't accusing you of anything, it just is what it is... a right wing plot. It's not strange that someone takes a fall even when they're innocent. US Congress defunded ACORN even though they were found innocent of all accusations just as an example.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: smurfy

I wasn't accusing you of anything, it just is what it is... a right wing plot. It's not strange that someone takes a fall even when they're innocent. US Congress defunded ACORN even though they were found innocent of all accusations just as an example.

American right wing you mean, it's a different ball game in my part of the world, you do not take politics here and stamp it with, yes climate change is real because I am left of centre, or no, climate change is not real because I am right of centre.
You use the word innocent, it's not even something that the climategate people themselves ever consider/ed unless they should come up against a judge, which they never were any so-called innocence finding was done in house, yet even there heads rolled, Phil Jones being top of the list, primarily because he was stupid, since at some time he e-mailed someone who did not erase their e-mails and they somehow ended up on the web. Did you know the later batch of e-mails talk of an early, well late really, Michael Mann report (2000) report as a piece of rubbish, while Michael Mann in turn rubbishes Judith Curry elsewhere in some other bothersome conflict, or that he also sent out names of editors of a magazine to make sure that any op-ed papers from that magazine would be ignored?
Did you ever look at the sites where data came from, not just the US but the UK as well, they are crappy as hell, some of them longstanding into centuries, where the environment has changed dramatically, and is some long term cases, were not even ideal in the first place. Yet and all, much of the original data comes from these places, and all that's left is for climate modellers to mess around with the data, and they are still doing it, with the goal posts changing all the time. Those guys knew full well they were working with a database full of rubbish, but convinced a clever/proper perhaps in their view, manipulation of the data would make their case. GISS uses cartoons, presumably in any which way and it seems there are no rules, a bit like NIST and building 7 on 9/11, and how much did that cost for that one cartoon? $10million...no questions asked, well there were, big ones in fact, but I digress.
The thing is, with all the money that has been spent, there is absolutely no absolute definitive answer as yet about climate change as we are given at this time. Michael Mann is still doing the rounds, sometimes religious groups, where he will emphasis on AGW...IT'S OUR FAULT....but , but, it's called climate change now isn't it, but why? Pfff.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GetHyped

anti-science denial sites,

shouldnt an anti science denial site

denounce // deny " anti scientific ideology "

its late - i is drunk - should i stop drinking or have another ?

The only way to combat tautologies is to keep drinking so have another on me

a reply to: smurfy

Science is science regardless of ideologies. That doesn't make it wrong to call out the side that is perpetuating disinformation regarding climate or science in general really and you're not immune from it in the UK, sorry. I've read a good bit of both batches of emails as well read lots of scientific research. There's absolutely nothing wrong with adjusting the data from weather stations and in fact, if they did not... the numbers would read warmer. That's right the data is skewed to cooler.

I think my eyes just rolled permanently into the back of my head. Natural News? Seriously? I once saw an article on their website where they attributed one particular scientist with two Nobel prizes, when he only received one and not for any of the reasons they gave. That website is beyond garbage.