The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shed light on more government-sanctioned junk science. Among the things covered in Thursday's oversight hearing is a startling revelation concerning the Department of the Interior that gets to the crux of climate skeptics' dissent over the supposed effects of anthropogenic warming. According to the hearing memorandum:

"[Office of Inspector General] found that the operator of a mass spectrometer device at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy Resources Programs Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colorado manipulated scientific results and data between 2008 and 2014. Committee staff later learned from the OIG that the individual was the second employee to do so, and that data manipulation in the lab began in the late 1990's. Test results from the lab are used in the Energy Resource Program's coal and water quality assessments. The OIG noted in its report transmittal letter that the full extent of the impacts of this manipulated data are not yet known, but that they will be serious and far ranging. According to the OIG audit, projects potentially affected by the falsified data between FY08 and FY16 had received $108 million in funding. USGS permanently closed the lab in February 2016 and the scientist in question resigned in the course of the investigation."

On Thursday, Rep. Bruce Westerman said, "It's astounding that we spend $108 million on manipulated research and then the far-reaching effects that that would have. We know how research multiplies and affects different parts of our society and our economy and … if you're working off of flawed data it definitely could be in a bad way."

What is it ecofascists are constantly crowing? Something about how the science of "climate change" is settled? It's especially easy to make that argument — which is scientifically flawed in any case — when the evidence is rigged. And climate alarmists have been caught again doing just that. Last week's hearing only affirms an inconvenient truth: In government, science is far likelier to be manipulated than it is truthful.

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

The majority of the scientists in the world have falsified data and/or are on the payroll of 'big environment'.

Jokes and sarcasm aside, the OIG report did not mention impact one way or another. The data could have been understated as easily as overstated in terms of potential down the line affect.

The mass spectrometer's usage in context of the report seemed to be more pollution related and less climate related. Yes, I realize the two are interconnected, but not specifically across the board when you look at the resulting papers based off of bad data.

Keep in mind the disconnect with most climate change deniers is that they are ignorant of science and/or have a complete and total lack of comprehension when it comes to the breadth and scope of how it crosses geo-political lines. They like to buy into a 'left' conspiracy or worse, a global conspiracy.

Its a double whammy for the stupid, hating science and government. Using science to outscience the scientists. The problem is that in order to tar all climate change with one flawed study, you would have to believe that the one study or that one source of data was used by all other climate scientists in reaching their conclusion. The bigger problem is that the allegedly competing science is corporate sponsored garbage done by hacks that never disclose their benefactors.

Maybe thats too much. I smell a 0/5 coming for my response.

Let me try this again:

So the glaciers are lying?

So the hottest month on record ever is natural because the earth had ice ages and they ended too.



-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

There is no doubt that we are seeing a lot of reconfigured data coming from the global warming cult. That is well documented. Some of us can't help but wonder why that is necessary in light of the supposedly incontrovertible evidence. We are also wondering why these cultists are trying to make it a crime to be skeptical about what the cult is selling. Again, why would that be necessary? You will just have to accept that some of us still like to think on our own and don't believe everything dem politicians say or whatever the putative consensus at the moment may be.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Yep, the earth is flat in this thread.

-------------------------

Wiki wiki

The "reconfigured data" is the original post above.
The author fraudulently attributed data manipulation by one lab tech doing coal and water quality assessments to bolster support for the conspiracy theories surrounding climate science.

If climate data manipulation happened, nothing is stopping you from proving it. The data are there on public record, including documentation of justifications for recalibration.

Science don't give a damn if you believe in it or not. Shit's gonna get hot, good luck to all of you.

-------------------------
“It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to be saving democracy from communism “ - Michael Parenti

AH, more fear tactics. Man, progs are afraid of everything. Shoot, to hear progs talk, you'd think Brexit was the end of the world. And Trump getting elected would be the end of the universe. That being the case, what difference does it make that things will heat up a bit?

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

oh puh-leeze

It's a Perkin Elmer ICP-MS - didn't you lookit the pics?

Remember what happened with PE and the Hubble...

 

-------------------------
add a signature since I'm here in profile anyway

Was it overstated or understated? You don't even know and you are making this comment.

.The operator of a mass spectrometer device.

Operator and spectrometer being singular.

Test results...are used in the Energy Resource Program's coal and water quality assessments.

I fail to see the relevance to climatology.

I don't see it as an indictment on USGS in general. Or are you asserting that all government science is fake?

 

 

-------------------------
...

This.

 

 

-------------------------
...

https://patriotpost.us/posts/43457

I'm assuming this is Crankit's source so we know to whom to give the credit for such scholarship.

Also, notice the banner ad for donations at the top right. Their idea of patriotic image is a cartoon of George Washington holding drum sticks and looking like Doc Brown from "Back to the Future" tripping on acid.

-------------------------
...

Another article there states that global warming is entirely made up by politicians and complicit scientists all over the world in the US and in other countries.

That is perhaps the broadest conspiracy in the history of man. Politicians from multiple countries colluding to bribe scientists to fix the data. In addition to getting climatologists to alter temperature data they gotten biologists to fake their data on species range shifts and changes in migration timing. They've gotten oceanographers to fake their data on water chemistry and on and on.

They've gotten cooperation from governments and scientists the world over but they can't stop Trump. Or maybe Trump is part of their master plan.

-------------------------
...

See, the thing is that progs, when they think the science supports their view, put scientists up there with gods. That is, they are all knowing and incorruptible. Well, this shows that might not be true. Seems evident to me what the point is. But, I guess it isn't.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

That is the distilled argument.

The crux of the climate skeptics dissent is that a lab producing bad data is an indictment against all government science.

Not a strong crux.

-------------------------
...

Could have made a point that not all scientists can be trusted, that would have been valid, and other scientists would agree that data needs to be verified, scrutinized and duplicated when possible, but that's not what happened here. Instead, the author fraudulently attributed data manipulation by one lab tech doing coal and water quality assessments to bolster support for the conspiracy theories surrounding climate science.

You might want to ask yourself why your sources of information are constantly getting caught manufacturing scandals based on misinformation.

-------------------------
...

classic thread, mods pin this if you can.


-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill