Scientists Never Falsify Data

Scientists are human just like anyone else and with such a wide ranging field, there are many different characters in the field. Many of them honest and many dishonest, but even honest scientists can use dishonesty from time to time. We all have our faults. SCIENTISTS DEFINED Here is how my opponent defined scientist: "scientists, engage in systematic activity to acquire knowledge and perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature" One problem with this definition is that it's not cited. It also seems like a job description of what scientists do or at best is a descriptive definition not meant to be all inclusive. The Google definition of scientist is as follows. Scientist- a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. (Google define) I checked about 5 different dictionaries mc they're all variations of that to some extent. Even that definition is descriptive and not meant to be all inclusive. CLIMATE GATE In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2] The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3] "Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we"re throwing out all post-1960 data "cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data "cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we"ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley"s!" ... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures " another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4] ""Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5] I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate. sources 1. http://web.archive.org... 2. http://www.americanthinker.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 5. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com...