Hey Global Warming Theorist Data Changers: Mess With The Research, Go To Prison.

A nice precedent has been set. Tamper with the data, try to make yourself look like a hero, make “false statements in research reports”: Go To Prison.

One of several places reporting this as it is an A.P. wire story:


Ex-Iowa State Scientist Gets Prison for Faking HIV Research

DES MOINES, Iowa — Jul 1, 2015, 4:58 PM ET
By DAVID PITT Associated Press

A former Iowa State University scientist who altered blood samples to make it appear he had achieved a breakthrough toward a potential vaccine against HIV was sentenced Wednesday to more than 4 ½ years in prison for making false statements in research reports.

Dong-Pyou Han, 58, also must pay $7.2 million to a federal government agency that funded the research. He entered a plea agreement in February admitting guilt to two counts of making false statements.

Government prosecutors said Han’s misconduct dates to 2008 when he worked at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland under professor Michael Cho, who was leading a team testing an experimental HIV vaccine on rabbits. Cho’s team began receiving NIH funding, and he soon reported the vaccine was causing rabbits to develop antibodies to HIV, which was considered a major breakthrough. Han said he initially accidentally mixed human blood with rabbit blood making the potential vaccine appear to increase an immune defense against HIV, the virus that can cause AIDS. Han continued to spike the results to avoid disappointing Cho, his mentor, after the scientific community became excited that the team could be on the verge of a vaccine.
Han’s attorney Joseph Herrold, a federal public defender, asked for probation instead of prison.

I say forget probation. Make him a really good precedent. Then round up the folks doing the nutty Global Warming Theorist “research” and charge them under RICO… plea out to 5 years and returning all the money…

Here’s a “2nd source” for confirmation. The Des Moines Register, and no A.P. byline.


Ex-ISU scientist seeks mercy in AIDS-vaccine fraud case

Tony Leys, tleys@dmreg.com 2:40 p.m. CDT June 30, 2015

A disgraced former Iowa State University scientist is asking a federal judge for mercy when deciding this week whether to send him to prison for scientific fraud.

Dong-Pyou Han pleaded guilty in February to faking results in AIDS-vaccine experiments. Prosecutors say his actions led federal administrators to award an extra $7 million to $20 million in grants for the research, and they want him to serve prison time for his actions.

Han, 58, was forced to resign from ISU after his deception was uncovered by other researchers in 2013. He could face nearly six years in prison under federal guidelines when he’s sentenced Wednesday, defense lawyer Joseph Herrold wrote in papers filed Monday. But Herrold asked that Han be sentenced to less time, or even to probation, for what he described as an isolated example of weakness and poor judgment. “This case is about human failings,” the lawyer wrote.

Han was indicted last June, and has been free while awaiting sentencing. The case is being watched nationally, because it is a rare example of a scientist being prosecuted for academic fraud.

I’d like to see it be a little less rare… Just how is mixing in blood ‘for effect’ any different from tuning climate models “for effect” or adjusting raw temperature data “for effect”? Looks the same to me. Even got the added grant money like the Global Warming Theorists do…

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in News Related and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Hey Global Warming Theorist Data Changers: Mess With The Research, Go To Prison.

  1. Jack says:

    I bet Will Steffen is watching this with wide eyes after his ploy with the light rail in Canberra and questions on meteorological data in Australia where raw data was turned from a cooling trend to a homogenised warming trend. That was reported by Jennifer Marohasy. She asked whoever did the homogenising how that happened? Still waiting for an answer if memory serves me correctly.

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    Maybe we all ought to print off a copy of the A.P. story and send it to every climate “scientist” on the “team”…

    Or just put Jennifer and JoNova onto them ;-)

  3. Another Ian says:


    Just passed the tip to Jo Nova.

  4. David H says:

    Finally someone gets caught messing with the data.
    Albeit HIV data.
    What a terrible crime yet the one that affects us all is the C02 scam.
    The green gas is not a greenhouse gas.
    But we have seen people get caught before.
    Remember the WIKI leaks.
    What became of those emails?
    Have we forgotten that?
    However our government is complicit.
    Remember white water?
    Be careful they will stop at nothing to get away with this fraud.
    Clinton still talks about his work on global warming like it’s a real deal.
    They all do.
    NOAA, NASA, EPA and the supreme court all directed by our government so they can levy a tax on the last thing they haven’t taxed the air we breathe.
    Now they want C02 placed in a toxic gas category.
    Sounds like since we breathe out toxic gas we will soon be considered harmful to the environment.
    Thus should be exterminated.
    I know sounds laughable but just wait.
    Our only hope is Billary does not get elected and the Sun keeps cooperating.
    Low sun spot counts for the next few years should do it.
    The collective (they) fear mongers will be hung if the earth continues not to warm.
    Oh what was I thinking they publish the data.
    We may be screwed after all.
    Dave H

  5. Wayne Job says:

    The world as I know it has gone crazy, the inmates are in charge of the asylum, I am 70 years old and have been looking for truth in science for fifty years, so far no luck. The AGW thing for me is the straw that broke the camels back.

    EM thank you for your considered opinion on many things for it makes me feel normal, over the next few months on my property will be conducted an experiment in the realm of exotic science, this if successful will put a cat among the pigeons. If and when we get results i will let you no.

    Our aim is to shoot the standard model of all things in the foot. Fingers crossed.

  6. tchannon says:

    Perhaps perversely I strongly disagree.
    He may be a fool, gullible, perhaps even bullied but he is the scapegoat.

    He was alone, directly funded, unmanaged, did all the PR, etc?

  7. pyromancer76 says:

    Any presidential candidate who makes this case with clarity, examples, and passion would get my vote and my energy. How many crony corporations would be “on the hook” for these kinds of investigations? What are the figures that I have heard — 50% of the so-called scientific research is fraudulent? Maybe we can forgive all “drug offenders” and release them from prison so we have room for the real fraudsters/destroyers. I think the AGW ones alone would fill a number of each country’s penal institutions.

  8. Snowleopard says:

    Since the climate scammers supply O’Bomber with talking points, they are almost certainly safe from federal prosecutors while he remains in office. Perhaps the recent increase in climate data tampering is actually in response to presidential “requests” for more such “evidence”.

    There are some presidential candidates who now SAY they are climate realists, but I don’t see the owners allowing either of their parties to nominate a presidential candidate who might actually torpedo the climate scam.

  9. Are you guys here insinuating that “97% of all climate scientists” are frauds and have not been caught yet? Or is it not 97%, which is generally claimed by the “climate” side? It’s hard for the layman to keep up with this stuff. How does a non-medical person judge HIV research data? They can’t. They have to rely on ‘experts’ and their publications. Same with climate-related information. So, unlike in HIV research, common statements are that the ‘vast majority’ of climate scientists support the anthropogenic model. Is that, in your estimation, not the case?

  10. Larry Ledwick says:

    The consensus is that — 97% of the bone heads who made this crap up believe in it.
    It is a totally manufactured number that has absolutely no value. There are 10’s of thousands of college educated highly technical people who disagree with the so called consensus, but they are not counted in the numbers because they do not self identify as climate scientists (which is an undefined specialty which has no acknowledged basis other than that they believe in the myth)

    It is circular logic where the folks who invented the game are claimed as the believers of the game and the uninitiated think it means something.

    It is a case of appeal to authority no different than the the TV add where some actor in a white coat and a clip board says Most dentists agree ———-

  11. E.M.Smith says:

    @Norbert Haupt:

    No. That’s a gross oversimplification.

    The world divides into the deliberately lying fraudulent, the understandably mislead followers, the true believers who are wrong, the slowly enlightening questioning, the Noobs who believe – some of whom ask questions and some just moving up the food chain to be true believers and wrong, the skeptics, etc. etc.

    Most people start out as Noobs ( “newbies” or New To The Topic) and change over time. I, for example, started as a Noob who believed “This sounds serious. I need to know more about it” and after getting slapped around at some “true believer” sites for asking reasonable questions found Wattsupwiththat.com and reasonable answers.

    Now, from the Climategate emails, we know that the “true believers and wrong” side are fairly large, but we also know that the “fiddling for effect” side is a significant fraction. There was clear intimidation of editors being promoted, there was ‘adjust the data to fit the narrative’ with substituting an instrument series for recent proxy data as the proxy was not doing ‘the right thing’ for ‘the cause’. And then there was someone committing fraud by posing as a board member to get private email. As I understand computer crime law, that comes under fraud (but I’m most familiar with California law and it’s a bit harsher than many others).

    So first off, we have to pitch out that “97%” number. That was really “97% of the people who took a position openly in their paper” and of those there was a bit of a fiddle to make some of them out as having positions stronger than most of us would say they took. There are many analysis of that paper showing the real percentage that agreed climate catastrophe was real and a problem was more like 0.3% of the total of papers analyzed. (Though one can make a case that the paper itself was a kind of scientific fraud, it would be hard to prove it was not just incredibly incompetent). So really we’re dealing with more like 1% who are doing fraudulent things (and I’d assert about 95% repeating the Catechism of “and caused by Global Warming” just to get the grant money while doing decent science in their papers on “The migration of spotted vole fleas” or “The effect of warm weather on short skirt sales”…) Leaving about 4% who are in the gray zone of “not quite fraud” but also “know they are doing wrong things”.

    All that, of course, is a guess. A somewhat informed guess, but still a guess.

    As an example, I’d say that Mosher and the folks at Berkeley B.E.S.T. are in the “understandably mislead followers” group. They have read the bafflegab that passes as “science” from the core group of advocacy, and re-implemented it in the same way (different computer language), and found the same results. No real surprise, and not fraudulent in any way. They replicated (with some small variations like more slices and splices) what was done before and got a similar result.

    Yet things done with inverted data series, splices of data sets that can not legitimately be spliced, and extraordinary influence assigned to one tree (and a selected one at that) argue much more strongly for “data fiddle for effect” and a real fraud investigation. Phrases like “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” come to mind.

    In short, it is a complicated morass of various motivations, culpabilities, and degrees of blame vs degrees of error vs degrees of fraud. That is part of why scientific fraud is so rarely prosecuted. Sorting out “stupidity and error” from “fraud for effect” is rather hard as there is a lot of stupid in the world.

    But that there are a couple of primary actors who are pushing an agenda for political effect rather than doing unbiased science is quite obvious. That some of them need to be sent up the river is also clear. That it hasn’t been done is a travesty of justice (and leads to suspicions of political favoritism and “top cover”). I think it would “clarify the mind” greatly for a few folks doing the most egregious data torturing to be summoned to court…

    Per Medical Research:

    I do not agree. I am a “layman” and I do fairly well looking at medical research and evaluating it. The notion that only an insider can understand something technical is flat out wrong.

    Anyone can look at a study and see the sample size is below the 1200 that’s plenty, or the 900 that is “close to enough”. When you have 12 folks in a study, the statistics are crap from it.

    Anyone can look at a study and see flaws of logic and reason. Or flaws of data selection. Or data hiding / not sharing. Or…

    There is ZERO need to be an “expert in the field” to read a paper and evaluate it. It might take an expert to catch some bizarre nuance, but the bulk of most studies is attainable to the “smart and willing to learn”. The “self taught” have caught a large number of experts with their pants down.

  12. Tom Austin says:

    97% of of self-identified astrologers believe in astrology and only an astrologer is qualified to comment on the subject.

  13. nigelf says:

    E.M.Smith, I’ve maintained for a few years now that the way to end this scam is first cut all funding to it, then federal trials and real prison sentences for those found guilty. That way a real message would be sent to future shysters that although the fame, money and funding are awfully tempting, you can only screw with the people for so long.
    They should also be mighty grateful we don’t live a hundred and fifty years ago. They would have got the ultimate penalty fairly swiftly.

  14. Another Ian says:


    I’m amazed at the speed of learning by the CAGW fraternity – that claims are most likely to be blog-vetted very quickly. And “scrutenised with a very intense scrut” as the saying goes.

    A while back there was a listing of the qualifications of readers at Jo Nova. Looked like you could run another Manhattan project without a lot of trouble

  15. Gail Combs says:

    WUWT is similar. I counted over 300 people with scientific backgrounds before I gave up counting.

    (I just did a copy and save to a file when ever anyone mentioned their scientific expertise.)

  16. Larry Ledwick says:

    That is the power or crowd sourcing, and the folks involved in CAGW simply do not understand how completely over matched they are by the folks who follow the serious skeptical blogs.

    Need a professional statistician — got one
    Need a professional geologist who happens to have experience in a certain region — got one
    Need a metrologist ( a professional at the art and science of measurements) — got one
    Need a mathematician — got one
    Need an engineer specialist in control networks and feed backs — got several from different fields
    Need a physicist — got one
    Need a weather man — got one
    Need a pilot with a life time of observation — got one
    Need an engineer who worked on some obscure project 40 years ago — got one
    Need a professional computer programmer to tell them how screwed up their code is — got one

  17. Sera says:

    The point is that the government is pressing charges against someone for misuse of government funds. If only private funds were used, they would not have a case, because they could not prove harm. That’s my ignorant opinion.

  18. E.M.Smith says:

    @Larry Ledwick:

    Also “Need a professional manager, from front line project management to executive – got one”.

    I’ve been everything from “computer project manager” to Director of I.T., Director of Facilities, President (of consulting company with a dozen employees), to Board Member of a public medical facility. You want to talk about how badly managed the I.T. projects are on the Global Warmers side, I’ve got the chops… (in addition to that “in the trenches” programming and SysAdmin and network design and… work).

    Heck, I’ve also got a State Of California Teaching Credential (data processing and related technologies) so need something explained? – got one ;-)


    The number of folks with “Masters and Ph.D.” at WUWT is dizzying…

    On a more personal note, I stumbled on a link to my posting about the Sahara wet period (way back when, about 2009?) in a reference by no less a person than Burt Rutan. (Blush ;-) I’ve not mentioned it as I try to respect the need for famous people to have privacy and not be exploited for personal aggrandizement. But now that we’re a good half decade plus past it, I guess I can afford a small mention… So “Want a damn fine engineer with atmospheric knowledge and materials science of superior quality? – got one” ;-)

    @Another Ian:

    IMHO, it is due to a very simple difference. The Skeptic community tends to be thoughtful and polite. The hard core Global Warming Theorists tend to be petty, vindictive, shallow, and vengeful. The most thoughtful folks tend to avoid snobs and vindictive boors…

    I also suspect that a lot of “folks with skills” had a similar experience to mine. Early on I started with a “Gee, this looks like it is important and could be very bad” attitude. Visited a few Global Warming sites, got flamed and insulted and called an idiot for asking demonstrably reasonable questions, and decided they were not my kind of folks… Visited WUWT and my questions were answered and addressed. Not hard to do a “compare and contrast” in that context.


    I’ve ponded that a bit. The problem is that “top cover” was established first, then organization were parasitized by partisans “for effect”. At that point it is essentially impossible to “cut off funding”. How, for example, do you stop the progressives running the “Gates Foundation” from using all that money to advance their agenda? Or the 100 and 1 other “foundations” and “charitable trusts” and even agencies under the watchful eye of Obama?

    The whole goal is to get another $200 Billion / year “slush fund” into the hands of the UN and beyond any hope of shut off.

    So yes, it needs doing. It’s the “how” part that’s hard.

    Though I’m fairly sure that the world is running out of cash to fund the game anyway, so it’s eventually self limiting. Unfortunately, that point comes when “We are all Greece”…

    Personally, I’ve just shifted to the “minimum taxable behaviour” until it is clear any tax is used more carefully. I’ve been “out of work” for about 1/2 year now. Sure, I ought to be flogging the resume, but I have not been. Just not interested in funding the game… (Though in a couple of more months I’ll need to ‘earn just enough’ again).

    Yeah, a weak kind of passive aggressive; but that’s all I’ve go right now. Free work for the Skeptics side that’s not tax generating is more valuable to me than being blood for the parasites…

    @Tom Austin:

    Nice one ;-) Captures the understanding simply and well…

    @Another Ian:

    Now that’s just not fair. Quoting actual saved data of actual temperatures in the past and showing them warmer than the “hottest ever”… Everyone knows that saved data is supposed to get colder over time, not be preserved unchanged like that ;-)

  19. p.g.sharrow says:

    As long as we have the Internet, We will be heard! All over the world, People are listening,
    Truth has pulled on her boots and has set out for a long walk. pg

  20. sabretoothed says:

    Hottest day on coldest part of the chart (when Australia had federation drought too ;)


  21. Gail Combs says:

    Norbert Haupt says: “Are you guys here insinuating that “97% of all climate scientists” are frauds and have not been caught yet?….”

    Well we do have confessions that it was all political.
    Aside from the Climategate e-mails you have:

    An interview with Tim Wirth who organized the 1988 Senate hearing at which James Hansen addressed global warming. Wirth led the U.S. negotiating team at the Kyoto Summit. He is now president of the United Nations Foundation. These are his words about how he scammed Congress:

    …Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer…

    …. Dukakis was trying to get an edge on various things and was looking for spokespeople, and two or three of us became sort of the flacks out on the stump for Dukakis, making the separation between what Democratic policy and Republican policy ought to be. So it played into the presidential campaign in the summer of ’88 as well….

    So a number of things came together…

    … What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …

    So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …

    This is the SAME Tim Wirth that said: “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” from his Dossier

    ‘In stunning testimony, under oath, before the U.S. House of Representatives, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, John Beale, a former executive of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed the EPA’s goal is to “modify the DNA of Capitalism.” Put another way, the entire “Global Warming” crusade has been a complete lie from the start — to attack the free market system — and the people telling this lie KNEW it was a lie when they started telling it! This former EPA executive is now on his way to jail.’ -Turner Radio Network, Jan. 22, 2014

    #3.Dr. Happer was fired by Al Gore: (I had the privilege of sitting in on a grad level physics lecture by Dr. Happer. The lecture was about Dr Happer’s experimental research about why the temperatures are not increasing.
    From a Senate report:


    ….“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said…

    Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993….

    ‘In the United States, the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs each year as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.’ -The European Foundation, Dec 15, 2009

  22. kokoda says:

    @Gail Combs…to further validate #2 John Beale’s testimony, here is the quote from Christiana Figueres, appointed as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Jan. 2015:
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

  23. Glenn999 says:


  24. Larry Ledwick says:

    Are you guys here insinuating that “97% of all climate scientists” are frauds and have not been caught yet?

    No a small percentage are almost certainly, but I would guess that the majority of them are one of the following:

    Not particularly good scientists “riding the wave to get grants” since without AGW they would be very unremarkable and poorly paid scholars if they had to actually work for a living.

    Sincere believers who are guilty of noble cause corruption, blinding them to the blunders they are making, or knowingly making blunders to skew the results for the “good of the people”

    Arrogant, self assured and not too bright twits who think they are much smarter than they really are and have fulfilled the peter principle. Not malicious just not bright enough to realize they are in way over their depth.

    Manipulative political schemers, scammers and sociopaths who are with full knowledge and fore thought playing the system for fun, profit status and adulation. And they get invited to all the cool parties.

    Well meaning idealists who are blinded to the manipulation they commit or witness and hence not looking too closely at the theory and its implications, because they are seeing what they expect to see.
    (ie confirmation bias)

    Some are just tools being used by others to server other agendas.

  25. Adam Gallon says:

    Whilst there are very powerful interests, especially politicians, protecting & encouraging the few to produce the required results, then nobody’s going to be doing porridge.

  26. Gail Combs says:

    As I showed in my comment above it has ALWAYS been about politics and not about science. Ex-Senator Wirth set-up the US Congress to ratify the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified 21/03/94 (signed 12/06/92)

    According to this treaty “climate change” is 100% caused by humans. As usual the Progressives changed the definition to confuse the Sheeple.

    Here’s the NEW official definition of “climate change”:

    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city buildings or air conditioners. It considers only atmospheric changes.

    The IPCC mandate is similar:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.

    So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

    The IPCC’s ROLE

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    Click to access ipcc-principles.pdf

    So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change. You can see why the Grant Chasers are ignoring anything having to do with natural climate change.

    Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

    The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

    We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

    This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. This is Lysenkoism. Science twisted to serve politics and the truth be damned.

    Voters have been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people like us assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.

    Global Warming: The New Lysenkoism

    The early returns of the Cult of Global Warming are in and they are not flattering. An ever-growing body of reputable scientists are gathering their courage and calling Global Warming what it is: an enormous hoax whose aim is not saving the planet, but rather, carrying the torch for communism and its utterly discredited bag of lies whose sole aim is to give a small group of elites control over the Earth’s stupid and uneducated population. For their own good, of course…..

    ….Lysenko was admitted into the hierarchy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and was put in charge of agricultural affairs. He used his position to denounce competent biologists as “fruit-fly-lovers and people haters.”

    Drawing a clearer line to the current professional assassination of those who dare to criticize the Global Warming Hoax, between 1934 and 1940, many Soviet scientists were simply executed or sent to slave-labor camps to die. In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience”; all geneticists were fired from work (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued (sound familiar?) China later adopted Lysenkoism as well after the 1949 takeover by communists.

    Lysenkoism was finally put in the trash where it belonged in the 1960s after it became clear to even the blind that it was fraudulent and counter-productive, but not before tens of millions had been starved to death during consecutive communist crop failures and thousands of reputable scientists had been slandered, marginalized, fired, or simply murdered.

    Global Warming is the worthy successor of Lysenkoism, displaying all the same qualities of quackery, bogus data, political bullying, professional blacklisting, communist/leftist sponsorship, damage to science, and economic thuggery. Something to keep in mind the next time Al Gore or Michael Moore fly into some city on their private Gulfstream jets to rail against the rest of us for destroying the planet.

    The problem of course is the attacks on honest scientists such as Willie Soon. It would seem the USA/UN is working its way towards the USSR type treatment of dissenters. We have already had ‘Deniers’ labeled as mentally ill and university profs calling for their trials or death since economic ostracism hasn’t worked all that well. This is especially true for the older scientists who have already made a name for themselves.

  27. gallopingcamel says:

    You are onto something important.

    The trouble with junk science is the lack of consequences for being wrong whereas when an engineer makes a mistake buildings collapse and people die. Thus engineering mistakes often have serious consequences, including jail time.

    The jailing of Italian scientists provoked much lamentation in academia but I regard it as too little and too late:

    While we are not going to get any of the trillions of taxpayer money wasted on CAGW a few hefty jail sentences would make some of us feel better. At the very least it would curb the reckless enthusiasm of the IPCC’s “Scientists”.

Comments are closed.