Originally Posted by kalnaren
Love how you call it fraud before the investigation has even released any prelim findings....
Honestly though, the original report wasn't out to lunch. Sounds more to me like researchers publishing an observed trend, and others (the eco-hippies) crusading the paper as "proof" they were correct. The paper wasn't even what I'd call in depth. There wasn't enough data to accurately conclude anything (and no conclusions should have been made). I would say I'm surprised the scientific community used such an incomplete report as "proof" of anything, but it seems par for the course since the climate change debate became a political one.
"we saw four polar bears while flying in an airplane. We think they drowned because sea ice is receeding."
How is that an "observed trend?"
Note that they didn't even confirm any cause of death.