Links are required for all cut and pasts simone, it's a matter of copyright law. Please post a link so the complete article can be accessed.

Originally Posted by simone

Today's Financial Times.

Too many people in the U.S. have filled their little minds with far too much religious crapola and they now totally lack the ability to understand how science works.

As a scientist, I think you’ve misread the situation. People have lost faith in science because many scientists have not remained dispassionate observers and reporters of facts. They have allowed themselves, and their credibility, to be put in question when they joined the political fray campaigning for AGW. And with the recent exposure of what some scientists will do to further their cause, it has just re-enforced the public’s distrust further.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

As a scientist, I think you’ve misread the situation. People have lost faith in science because many scientists have not remained dispassionate observers and reporters of facts. They have allowed themselves, and their credibility, to be put in question when they joined the political fray campaigning for AGW. And with the recent exposure of what some scientists will do to further their cause, it has just re-enforced the public’s distrust further.

The quote that Simone posted actually suggested what you say.
It states that

..... scientists must work to regain public trust by being more open about their findings. “We need to be more transparent and provide more access to our research data,” he said.

and follows with a few winges from scientists.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Links are required for all cut and pasts simone, it's a matter of copyright law. Please post a link so the complete article can be accessed.

I believe that she did. She listed the author and the fact it was from "Today's Financial Times". Granted, she didn't provide a hyperlink, but is that really required?

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

I believe that she did. She listed the author and the fact it was from "Today's Financial Times". Granted, she didn't provide a hyperlink, but is that really required?

Actually, yes, I believe it is required to make the rest of the article available to the reader. Since when is just mentioning the source satisfying the copyright laws? See point #8 from the forum rules?

8. When quoting information please give the source and a link when possible.

There's no reason why she can't or shouldn't post a link to the article in question unless she doesn't want us to see some part of it because it works against the point she wants to make in her bogus subject matter.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Actually, yes, I believe it is required to make the rest of the article available to the reader. Since when is just mentioning the source satisfying the copyright laws? See point #8 from the forum rules?

8. When quoting information please give the source and a link when possible.

There's no reason why she can't or shouldn't post a link to the article in question unless she doesn't want us to see some part of it because it works against the point she wants to make in her bogus subject matter.

Using just the info Simone provided, it took me about 5 seconds to find the article. I think you're being a little too picky.
FT.com / Technology / Science - Public losing faith in science

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

Using just the info Simone provided, it took me about 5 seconds to find the article. I think you're being a little too picky.
FT.com / Technology / Science - Public losing faith in science

I could have searched it out too JP, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is forum policy, and that policy exists because of the copyright law. Not to mention it is forum decorum/courtesy so the members can conveniently click on the link and read the rest of the story rather than just the part the thread starter wants focussed on.

I have quoted complete articles and been reported for forgetting to post the link on this forum, so what makes simone special that she should get a pass when she only quotes a couple of choice paragraphs which serve her distorted purpose? So being picky isn't the issue here, being consistent is.

I'm with JPSartre on this one - both that Archie is being needlessly picky and that 'faith in science' is down because scientists have recently been increasingly portrayed as biased. That's media spin for you, though - no-one wants to print an article about someone doing something normal (read: proper science).

To get mildly partisan (kinda), I'd also say that 'faith in science' is down because 'science' is still backing AGW, and there are a lot of people with vested interests paying a lot of money to see AGW falsified in the public eye. A good comparison would be either cigarette advertising at about the time that the more harmful effects were being publicised, or the behaviour of the relevant parties when CFCs were being regulated.

Originally Posted by iangb

I'm with JPSartre on this one - both that Archie is being needlessly picky and that 'faith in science' is down because scientists have recently been increasingly portrayed as biased. That's media spin for you, though - no-one wants to print an article about someone doing something normal (read: proper science).

To get mildly partisan (kinda), I'd also say that 'faith in science' is down because 'science' is still backing AGW, and there are a lot of people with vested interests paying a lot of money to see AGW falsified in the public eye. A good comparison would be either cigarette advertising at about the time that the more harmful effects were being publicised, or the behaviour of the relevant parties when CFCs were being regulated.

As for your opinion that I am being picky; I couldn't care less what your opinion is since I am right about both the rule and the copyright laws which require the link to be posted with the article.

As for the criticism of science today and the perceived bias people suspect AGW scientists of, that exists because the evidence has been found, seen and widely distributed for all of the civilized world to see. Yet we still have people like our messianic president claiming AGW to be absolutely proven beyond any doubt at all.

Until these liars decide to face reality and admit that global warming science has been following an agenda rather than the truth where ever it leads to, then people will continue to doubt their veracity. Here's a new article on this subject:

February 21, 2010
Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists
By Selwyn Duke


At one time, some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed.

Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. There is now a never-ending barrage of articles on the climate scam, with The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post firing some recent salvos. And these inconvenient truths are just adding to a case against the Climateers that has become dizzying.

Really, those issuing Chicken Little warnings had a tough sell from the get-go. We're told that our world has seen at least five major ice ages, but then again, I've also heard four. It has experienced numerous minor ones, although I'm not sure if anyone knows precisely how many. In fact, we hear that the pattern is to have 100,000-year glacial periods followed by 12,000-year interglacials, with 1,500-year cycles of warming and cooling embedded within them. We're told that during part of the Cryogenian Period -- otherwise known as "Snowball Earth" -- the world was completely blanketed with snow and ice, and that during another period, glaciers were almost or completely gone. Furthermore, we're informed that during the latter, there was still, believe it or not, dry land and creatures to tread upon it.

But the creature called man has the capacity to worry, and worry he does. He worried about global cooling in the 1970s and then later about global warming. Then it became "climate change." He worried about causing rising seas, even though we know that the ocean around Florida was once three hundred feet lower and at another time a hundred feet higher. He worried that CO2 -- a naturally occurring gas necessary for life and conducive to plant growth (which is why botanists pump it into greenhouses) -- would spell our end. Never mind how it's said that CO2-level changes follow temperature changes, not the reverse. A hypothesis needed its data.

Then, oh, boy, did we hear about that data. First there was Climategate, with e-mails showing that "scientists" had schemed to suppress inconvenient truths and had refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Then came the admission that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was dead wrong about Himalayan ice melt. And other shoes have dropped as well. Remember the IPCC warning that climate change could cause the loss of 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest? It was based on a report by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund, that misrepresented a study. Then we learned of other notable IPCC sources as well, such as a student's master's dissertation and a sporting magazine.

Next, notorious University of East Anglia head and central Climategate figure Phil Jones may not yet be starting to sing truly, but he is at least singing a different tune. He now admits that the Medieval Warm Period might have been toastier than today, meaning that current temperatures "would not be unprecedented." To those of us who vaguely remember stories about dinosaurs and Mesozoic CO2 levels five to ten times today's and temperatures 11 to 22 degrees greater, this isn't exactly earth-shattering. Jones also admits that there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995, something that, when asserted mere months ago, got one branded a flat-earther. In addition, he now says that the Gorelesque view that "the debate is over" is "not my view." Interestingly, though, he never made this known until he was caught green-handed.

Then we heard how the 6,000 weather stations that collected temperature data had mysteriously been reduced to 1,500, and that those eliminated just happened to be in cooler regions. As for examples of those used, journalist Wesley Pruden writes, "Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners." That's almost as bad as positioning one in front of Al Gore's mouth.

But, hey, while the Chicken Little Climateers had a tough sell, they had the Government-Media-Academia-Entertainment Axis on their side and a tight little theory. If it got warmer, it was man's fault. If it got cooler, it was man's fault. If it got warmer in places it was cooler and cooler in places it was warmer, it was man's fault. If the weather became more volatile, it was man's fault. The only thing that could have disproven their theory was if the weather stayed precisely the same henceforth, anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this actually would be unprecedented.

The Climateers, however, can change as quickly as what they claim to care about. For example, robbed of settled-science sleight-of-hand, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel now states, "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty [before acting]."

Ah, that's the ticket. Before, we had to do something because of certainty; now we have to do something because of uncertainty.

Well, my head is spinning. Trying to process all these twists and turns, my mind has become a hodgepodge of information resembling Phil Jones' office.

Yet amidst this exposition of fact and exposure of fiction, one point never changes: We have been had. And one question remains: Will justice be done?

Let us be clear on the gravity of the Climateers' crime: They have used billions of our tax money to fund fraudulent science. And why?

For the purposes of promoting policies that would steal billions more.

And what happens now? Do they just get to say "oops" and slink away?

American Thinker: Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists

Originally Posted by Archangel

I could have searched it out too JP, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is forum policy, and that policy exists because of the copyright law. Not to mention it is forum decorum/courtesy so the members can conveniently click on the link and read the rest of the story rather than just the part the thread starter wants focussed on.

I have quoted complete articles and been reported for forgetting to post the link on this forum, so what makes simone special that she should get a pass when she only quotes a couple of choice paragraphs which serve her distorted purpose? So being picky isn't the issue here, being consistent is.

Originally Posted by FAQ

When quoting information please give the source and a link when possible.

She provided the author, the date and the source. What more was needed? The only thing she didn't give was the hyperlink, which isn't a requisite.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Links are required for all cut and pasts simone, it's a matter of copyright law. Please post a link so the complete article can be accessed.

It is very easy to Google the Financial Times and bring up the article. I subscribe and I'm not disclosing my IP.

Originally Posted by JPSartre12

She provided the author, the date and the source. What more was needed? The only thing she didn't give was the hyperlink, which isn't a requisite.

Sartre! You are a dear prince!

I can't believe I said that, but thanks!

Originally Posted by simone

Sartre! You are a dear prince!

I can't believe I said that, but thanks!

Trust me, I'll be on your side on those rare instances that you are actually right.

What I found out in my fluoride research is that research scientists are funded by large organizations and corporations who have the rights to the research results. They can agree to have them published or, not depending on whether the findings support their cause or, product.

So, even though there may be contradicting evidence obtained by an independent research group, it is usually discredited as not being 'peer-reviewed'... because the peers are obligated to the big spenders.