Anthony Watts, climate disinformer, writes about a study of students and nurses in India to question the academic integrity of climate scientists throughout the world. (Archived here.) His headline reads:
Could this study on honesty and government service explain the EPA climateer fraud and ‘Climategate’ ?
Anthony doesn't mention Enron or any of the other huge scandals in the private sector. He prefers to suggest that dishonesty is rampant among climate scientists.
This is the same Anthony Watts who:
- lied about the 97% consensus, most blatantly
- sought $$$ from his readers to pay for his recent trip to AGU13 San Francisco, without revealing how much money he was given, how it was spent, or the fact that he most probably didn't have to pay for attending the AGU conference
- promotes fantastic paranoid conspiracy theories to pretend that the greenhouse effect isn't real
- is a pathetic hypocrite, pretending to be a hero, while wrongly accusing scientists of lying about their research.
What a dismal excuse for a human being is Anthony Watts. He goes to the extreme of inventing rapid onset UHI disease and global warming by Russian steampipes and when that doesn't work, he resurrects old wrong interpretations of stolen emails to "prove" something nefarious. Is it the thief who was wrong? Not according to Anthony Watts. Stealing isn't a crime. To him it's a crime to want to do good science. I don't believe Anthony ever wrote about the real facts of the matter. His honesty doesn't stretch that far. He either lies outright or is dishonest by innuendo or omission.
It doesn't take a research scientist to demonstrate the truism that climate disinformers have a tendency to be dishonest and unethical.
It doesn't take a giant intellect to figure out that if multiple lines of evidence from a wide variety of independent sources point to the same result, then that result is most likely to be correct.
PS The study that Anthony referred to is about students and nurses in India. It is not reported in a very clear manner, for example there is no quantitative indication in the conclusion, merely a statement that "college students who cheat on a simple task are more likely to prefer to enter government service after graduation" without indicating how much more likely. At one point it points to a small percentage:
Students who scored higher on the dice task (i.e. are more dishonest in this task) prefer government jobs. A one standard deviation increase in dice points reported corresponds to a 4.2 percent increase in the probability of preferring a government job.
Elsewhere it reports that:
Students who believed that networks are necessary for success were 5.6 percent more likely to prefer public service positions. However, students who believed bribes are necessary to operate a business in India were 4.5 percent less likely to prefer government work. Thus, it seems that reporting that corruption is pervasive or necessary in standard attitudinal questions about corruption do not consistently predict preferences.
Which tells us what exactly? That students who believe bribes are necessary in India are more likely to prefer to pay bribes rather than receive them?