O professor, engenheiro, e "forecasting" J. Scott Amstrong argumenta em video que menos de 1% dos artigos publicados em jornais cientificos seguem metodos cientificos. O foco dele sao artigos "cientificos" que tratam de mudanca climatica.Para ele os metodos cientificos saoPor que isso acontece, artigos nao usam metodos cientificos basicos e conseguem publicar em jornais cientificos de prestigio? Porque nenhum avaliador exige isso:Vejam o relato da analise de Arsmtrong clicando aqui.Eu complementaria dizendo que hoje em dia o discurso (mesmo falacioso) e mais relevante que o metodo cientifico e que a pressa dos dias de hoje exalta a preguica. Dificilmente um pesquisador faz analise do que foi dito antes sobre o assunto que pesquisa. Em suma, ele diz que os esquerdistas que dominam as universidades devem aceitar e ouvir o que dizem os conservadores, pois assim conseguirao entender a vida fora das universidades.Nos Estados Unidos, so 10% dos professores de universidades sao conservadores.Qual e a chance disso acontecer? Zero. Os esquerdistas perderiam os debates. E eles sabem disso.Leiam o texto de Nicholas Kristof clicando aqui. O video acima apenas explica muito por cima o caso. O jornal Daily Mail foi bem mais detalhista, sobre como a organizacao Administracao Oceanica e Atmosferica dos Estados Unidos (NOAA) manipulou os dados para convencer politicos do mundo todo que ha aquecimento global no planeta durante os Acordos de Paris.Vejam abaixo, parte do que disse o Daily Mail, leiam todo o artigo clicando aqui.:Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data - The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming- It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change- Americas National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules- The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, unverified dataBy David Rose for The Mail on SundayThe Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the worlds leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that Americas National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.The report claimed that the pause or slowdown in global warming in the period since 1998 revealed by UN scientists in 2013 never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the worlds media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, unverified data.It was never subjected to NOAAs rigorous internal evaluation process which Dr Bates devised.His vehement objections to the