$112,500,000 In Conspiracy Theory

When I point out fraud and collusion in climate science, a standard response from climate alarmists is :

That is just nutty conspiracy theory to believe that all the world’s scientists are lying about climate

I don’t know where they manufacture people that dimwitted, but Duke University just paid out $112,500,000 in fines for obtaining scientific research money fraudulently.

Duke University Agrees to Pay U.S. $112.5 Million to Settle False Claims Act Allegations Related to Scientific Research Misconduct | OPA | Department of Justice

The whistleblower made over $30 million for standing up for scientific integrity.  Now we need someone at Penn State University who wants to get rich and put an end to Michael Mann’s (very profitable) reign of terror over climate science.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to $112,500,000 In Conspiracy Theory

  1. Dave N says:

    So… does Mann think that CAGW proponents talking points are *not* coordinated? If so, so much for there being a “consensus”.

    The same bad actors who started the climate alarm continue to try to silence any dissenters through manipulation of social media using carefully deployed armies of morons who don’t know what they’re talking about.

    He has way too much irony in his diet

  2. cannon cocker says:

    Well it’s about time!

  3. feathers says:

    70% (maybe higher) of all “peer-review” publications are garbage.

    • Jimmy Haigh says:

      I’d put the number at 97%.

      • feathers says:

        I see what you did there…well done!

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Why, it’s the Global Warming Constant!

          This is Michael Mann’s Alpha and Omega, Α&Ω = 97%, the most important constant in the universe, with the Cosmological Constant Λ = 2.036 × 10^35 s^2 being a distant second value describing space time continuum.

  4. Patrick healy says:

    Did that clown just mention Hillary Clinton?
    He said “the same bad actors who hacked the election, continue to try and hijack the discourse on (the weather)?
    Seeing as it was the demoncrats who tried to hijack the election I am puzzled by his (lack) of logic. But then seeing its wee Mickey it is not surprising.

  5. arn says:

    they told me that that a “conspiracy” on such a large scale is impossible.
    That it is impossible to keep thing secret in huge groups((mahattan project=140.000 ‘participants’ and it was kept a secret for almost 2 decades))
    It is impossible that 2 countries,their secret services and the entire MSM conspired and lied about WMD’s.
    Or state organised organised drug smuggel to poison the own people(cia/mayer lansky/air america)
    or state sponsored terror attacks(gladio).

  6. DCA says:

    Einstein’s theory of relativity didn’t become accepted because it was popular; it became accepted because it withstood rigorous scrutiny.

    Bring on the scrutiny!

  7. MGJ says:

    I have no trouble believing in the existence of dishonest scientists.

    Throughout the 1990s I worked in Telecoms research. Scientific publications would have the odd dodgy paper but were essentially scrupulously honest until…BIG money arrived in the form of the Telecom bubble. Almost overnight, utterly ridiculous papers were being published claiming all manner of absurdities, all with the aim of inflating the value of their usually extremely crooked start-up.

    To pacify our own shareholders and to show we weren’t being left behind, one of our tasks was to expose these ridiculous claims. Almost all would violate at least one fundamental law of physics or would claim to have just invented something that had been around for years.

    Scientists per se may not be crooks but human beings certainly can be when the incentives are big enough.

    • arn says:

      Scientists per se are better crooks than average joe,
      as they are better educated and smarter .
      ((the dreyfuss affair is a perfect example of how well such systems work))

  8. ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N says:

    Aww. Poor Mickey Mannequin’s just having a sook because his Cagwist team’s arguments are still as baloney as his own career, even decades down the track. Nice deflection there Mickey, keep jackin’ it and get a real job, or go into hiding before you go to jail because you can’t repay your waistline to those that had everything stolen off them to feed YOU.

  9. winnipeg boy says:

    You are in a perfect position to be the citizen whistleblower.
    Do it.

  10. scott allen says:

    Rampant software error do undermine scientific results. even if only one line of code is wrong in 10,000 line it will invalidate the results (Chaos Theory).

    and even if they got the software 100% correct (industry average is 15-50 lines out of 10,000 can have errors) up to 73% of scientist self admit that they or colleagues tamper with the data to obtain the results they want.

  11. Johansen says:

    Uhhh….. Penn State has paid out over $100,000,000.00 to settle CHILD ABUSE claims. That’s a HUNDRED MILLION smacks! That’s a heck of a lot of money, even for a university. In case we forgot, the victims were 8-12 year old boys (and underage girls). The University administration knew about it for decades and DID NOTHING to stop it because of their beloved sports program. Several administrators were found GUILTY of CHILD ENDANGERMENT, along with the chief perpetrator.

    I don’t live in PA, but if I did I wouldn’t go near this place, and I don’t believe anything their “scientists” say

  12. Jeff Jones says:

    you know you are on the right track when they attack you personally and not your argument.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Jeff! What a stupid thing to say. You would never say such an idiotic thing if you weren’t a complete jerk!

      (Jeff! Jeff! I am just kidding! I am only saying that because you are completely right and exactly on track, so instead of using rational arguments, I just attacked your character. Sigh… I just love self-referential responses. Or is this a meta-response? I’m not sure. Either way, you are correct in what you said. Hope you don’t mind the little joke…)

      • scott allen says:

        It’s a well know argument called Marcusian Rhetorical where you don’t engage a persons argument you say things that discredit them by calling them bigots, racist, deniers, flat earths etc.
        Just go to any public post (real clear politics etc) and watch liberals who quickly run out of logic resort to name calling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.