MaxPC wrote:The whisleblower's story has made headlines in quite a few sources.
Like The Daily Mail and a whole lot of political publications. Also in some scientific journals, which seem to side with the scientists who produced that paper. I pointed to some of that earlier.
Did you notice that the "whistleblower" directly contradicts what you claim he said about tampering? And there are other things he did say that other scientists are saying are not true.
MaxPC wrote:It emphasizes the fact that when governments get involved in the sciences, politics will always interfere with authentic science results. Inconvenient data is submerged and paid spokespersons create spin to keep it hidden. I've watched it for 60 years in the sciences.
If government didn't fund science - using procedures that both political parties can accept to protect from political bias - then global warming research would be funded primarily by the same industries and lobbyists who are producing all the propaganda we see. There's probably no perfect way to fund science, and no perfect objectivity, but I doubt that eliminating government funding would help make research more objective.
Who do you think should provide the funding? Do you not believe that peer review and the scientific process followed in scientific communities eventually brings out the truth?
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?