>>"I believe "climate science" is a cliche of young scientists who, like you, never listen to what far more senior researchers tell them."
I believe "medicine" is a cliche of young doctors who, like you, never listen to what far more senior researchers tell them.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
Show me the research of the senior scientists who know all these young scientists are wrong.
>>"They have been caught out exaggerating, lying and cheating too often."
Really? Please provide some examples.
>>"How about addressing the "climategate" emails without dismissing them as having been stolen. They were leaked by a whistle blower."
I suppose this is the sum of your evidence of it happening "far too often." Frankly, I've heard the accusations that was anything untoward happened far too often.
I wouldn't dismiss them by saying they were stolen, I would dismiss them given the enormous number of reviews by competing universities, government departments and scientific organisations:
1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." 2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community". 3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit". 4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann". 5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt". 6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets." 7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers". 8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data". 9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
Unless you're saying every one of these institutions is involved in a conspiracy too?
>>"You want answers? As I say I don't have to prove a thing because I don't want to change the world."
So what you're saying is "I can post unsubstantiated scientific statements on a public science forum, tell anyone that opposes me that they're wrong, but I don't need to provide any evidence to back up my statements because I'm against the carbon tax."
