It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain.

We should resolve this thread like early humans resolved their confrontations with T-Rex! SMASH IT WITH A ROCK!

@Khaz Modan

It is not the same as faith to take legitimate scientific sources at their word. Experimentation and observation must yield predictable, consistent results to be considered a valid piece of some theoretical framework. In other words, the experiment or observation itself and the result must be reproducable within an acceptable margin of error.

Simply making stuff up wouldn't do you any good. You would be immediately exposed as a fraud and never become published in any credible, peer-reviewed literature.

I do, however, agree with you that we should not take /people/ at their word, and verify sources of information for ourselves. I could lay claim to the fact that retroviral genes found within human and primate genomes are strong evidence of our common ancestry, but what good would it do if you didn't believe me and I failed to source my statement?

> Acolyte wrote:

>
Simply making stuff up wouldn't do you any good. You would be immediately exposed as a fraud and never become published in any credible, peer-reviewed literature.

lolol  Climategate anyone?  That's exactly what they all did!

They discovered they didn't break laws.

Just like the guy with the fake uniform and fake medals isn't breaking any laws.

That they're not breaking laws doesn't change the fact that they're liars. UEA scientists intentionally mislead people in their representations of their data. Sure, they're not criminals. They're just bad scientists. They should become politicians, since that's their higher priority anyway. They might seem honest by comparison.

> V.Kemp wrote:
> They discovered... [...] ...by comparison. <

You do realise that this proves we can, with a high degree of certainty, trust what we are told, right? Think about it; how long did the "lie" last before it was questioned by scientists, including scientists with something to lose by questioning it?

That answer is how long it would take for the truth to be revealed should anyone discover that the answers provided by certain dating techniques were just plain wrong.
__________

Still wondering about what Flint's "theory of evolution" is.

>>@Walking_Corpse

None of the official inquiries discovered any actual wrongdoing on the part of the UEA scientists. Their worst crime, apparently, was that their methodology could have used improvement. It was not nearly the scandal that the media had portrayed it to be.<<

That could be said of Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President.  As one critic points out, the official enquiries started at UEA and ended at UEA.  Unsuprisingly they didn't poop in their own nest. 

Working to deny professional publication of opposing viewpoints harms other scientists. If your work can't get published then it doesn't matter if it is totally correct; it is alway second-rate, "not yet peer-reviewed" and thereofre, in the current polarized climate, it is easily dismissed by opponents.  They openly said that was the purpose of choking off professional review, and the UEA investigation did not ask the targets of this conspiracy how they were affected; it asked the conspirators if they were seriously guilty.  They refused to plead guilty.

I cant agree that deliberately fudging calculations to influence public policy is ever merely a "methodological error".  It is fraud. these guys are crooks.  If you like you can tell them I said so, and let them sue me, and I won't rely on limpwristed inquiries to prove it.