An article by LN Amaral et al. in the August 2025 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science reports an increase in evidence of fraud in scientific journals. Having reported on predatory publishers, I was aware of developing attempts to lure naive scientists–mostly graduate students in my experience–willing to pay for the privilege, to pump up their CVs with quick publications, while bypassing peer review. The Amaral et al. investigation has uncovered, with the help of Nature editors, a cadre of editors who facilitate publication of false and plagiarized data. What scares me the most, is that regular faculty members at some universities, succumbing to publish-or-perish pressure, are increasingly (according to the PNAS report) taking advantage of the services of these corrupt perpetrators. With public trust in scientists at a low ebb, this news is devastating. CFI has to get on top of this issue by supporting an honest approach to the limits of science, and the responsibility of scientists to avoid politicizing their presentation of data, so as to make the lay public suspect they have a conflict of interest.
One of the cause is that the rating of scientists gives a great weight to the number of papers published
The Exxon -Mobil scientists, the mining conglomerate scientists the tobacco industry scientists…………
Regarding Climate Change alone. I hear we are now down to low of 135 scientific papers published per day now. The taxpayers have paid billions to push one sided political driven science to change the world by fearmongering and emotional manipulation overriding their ability to think critically.
Climate change is not the topic. And science denial by uninformed and politically motived fools is not critical thinking.
Climate change is a scientific truth which effects can be feel every day.
BS is still BS any way you put it. Fraud in science is the topic and Climate Change is about 97% fraud. Thirty years of scientific modeling of more than a couple of dozen super computers and we can’t get three outcomes to match. It boils down to the denial of science by the climate change fearmongers. No lawsuits showing climate change is causing the damage or risk as claimed by the fearmongers has prevailed. No fearmongering predictions have materialized.
What are the scientific predictions of climate change today?
One is that Climate Change does exist. I have always agreed it does exist.
Is Climate Change good or bad? There are both good and bad effects of Climate Change. We are starting to see results as the political winds and funding are changing.
If science has shown Climate Change is going to do major damage. Then why have we not created a Department of Climate Change? Why are we still using consensual science that has been proven wrong time after time?
Then gather your scientific truth up and get with the lawyers who are waiting like hungry lions for the scientific truth to start billion-dollar lawsuits.
The true plot is to hide the origins of climate change:
There are dozens of other trustworthy sources if you look seriously
About Science and climate 
Lawyers are ready to start lawsuits what ever be the truth.
Some scientific instance have been created GIEC among them.
Trump and his buddies are destroying any agency able to work about the topic, including FEMA.
And to fight climate change would mean:
- to limit the appetites of big business
- to limit the way USA lives.
Nothing to please to any politicians.
All that is talking about is carbon in a past time period about how carbon was in the air was increasing and cities being heat sinks. I was around and what I remember is that the carbon program was about farming. When a field is plowed, carbon is released. The Wall Street types wanted to create a carbon exchange based upon all farmers paying dollars per plowed acre. They got the exchange up in Chicago and it ran for a few years.
Climate Change came from the CIA’s University of Pennsylvania. Using Al Gore. Government created and backed.
Everything but science.
For a decade I was IPCC’s best backer on this site. Now I feel bad about the fact that I backed the IPCC.
Show me any datum points or datum lines that have withstood a scientific review over time. The IPCC keeps changing requirements. Without datum points you cannot show the difference between Global Warming, Earth Cycles, Sun Cycles, Basic Weather, The Milankovitch Cycle, and cloud effect on earth’s temperature.
Ask yourself what is the reason that Climate Models never match. It is because the IPCC goal is to report the worst-case scenario to the UN. It is not saying the worst-case scenario will happen. IPCC’s goal is not to provide any good case scenarios. The UN wants hundreds of billions of carbon dollar paid by the USA to poor nations. USAid was going to make big payments to poor nations but Trump stopped that. We have a lot of nations pissed at us now. It was only going to cost the working man about 3K per year.
The IPCC is a none profit and if it reported that there is no world ending problem with Climate Change. They would be out of a job.
Today the IPCC is saying that they need several 40-year blocks of new data to compare to have the models to start matching. What is that 120 to 160 years away.
The insurance industry that covers tidal walls is still using Global Warming numbers and not Climate Change numbers. That should tell us something.
Just got a new book out titled “Climate Uncertainty and Risk, Rethinking Our Response.” Just haven’t had time to read it yet.
I’ve retired from arguing statistics and data with you.
What decade was that?
Back when CFI forum was hot. When there were debates like Jesus’s family tomb (2007 est.). The location of the fertile crescent. Which I was able to prove that no early plant seeds were ever found in that part of the Middle East. But was I was discredited for claiming that the human movement out of Africa happened more than 30-40K years ago. Today it is understood that movements out of Africa goes back as far as 300K years ago. My, how just a few years can change our knowledge base. Another debate was about when the books of the NT were written. Right after the death of Jesus or closer to a century later. Today it is agreed upon by top scholars closer to a century later. Then there was the debate about An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore (2006). Another debate about the Ice Cores and the CO2 rising decades after the temperature increased. In other words, the rise in CO2 followed the heating cycles of the earth. Which brough up the IPCC and the climate models. Which I thought was a wonderful idea to have the world scientists and major universities working together to answer the major threat of earth’s warming on the entire climate system. The debates were about how the IPCC was not following basic science. I took the side of waiting until the climate models were up and running. Just give it a couple more years. Boy was I wrong.
It is best you stay away from cutting edge subjects. They sometimes require common factors which are debatable and not yet scientifically proven. Example, I have debated clouds being earths cooling system to fight overheating years before it now being studied as earth’s cooling system. When I claimed that illegal immigration was a problem. You claimed that such a small percentage of illegal people was not a problem. It did turn out to be a major problem. Point being, it helps to debate subjects and not just follow the political party lines.
You’re a major problem
Is that because I think someone should stick up for the 320,000 missing children that have crossed the border?
Christian scientists, big pharma scientists,
One of the dumbest conspiracy theories. They aren’t missing, someone phoned a few of them and they weren’t there. From that, the fear mongerers made up stories about human trafficking.
Back to conspiracy theory again. You do know that several of your conspiracy theories have not played out. It is now accepted that Covid is not from nature. What unnatural animals at the wet market do you think Covid originated from now? Let’s stay away from the conspiracy theory pathway. Because we both know it is nothing more than a political talking point meant to dodge critical thinking.
Can we agree that the “someone” were working for a state or federal government department and was paid to do the calling as part of their job?
Let’s agree that we know who the root “fear mongers" are. The people talking about the data from the state and federal workers that compiled the reports. Those reports then are used by department heads who are looking at up to five years in federal prison under section 1001 of the Patriot Act and 8 years imprisonment if connected to section 2331 when they are called upon reporting this data in congressional hearing if they lie, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, etc… I have watched some the congressional hearing on the internet and also seen news reports showing the department heads stating the numbers at congressional hearings we are talking about.
You are saying that department employees, department heads, and congress are committing one of the dumbest conspiracy theories. Is that correct?
For a timeline on the issue. AI- Multiple U.S. government agencies have been involved in tracking unaccompanied migrant children for several years, though the scope and intensity of these efforts have shifted significantly over time. The government’s tracking and oversight process has faced repeated criticism for systemic failures, particularly during periods of increased migration.
Trump Administration (2025): After returning to office, the Trump administration directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to track down unaccompanied migrant children in the U.S. The administration claims this is a joint initiative with the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to prevent human trafficking. The administration stated that it began its search after discovering a backlog of over 65,000 unanalyzed reports regarding unaccompanied minors under the Biden administration.
Coordination issues: Despite multiple agencies being involved, reporting from the Center for Public Integrity and Scripps News suggests there is no clear local, state, or federal agency taking full responsibility for investigating why many unaccompanied minors disappear after being placed with sponsors. Critics point to communication gaps between ORR, ICE, and law enforcement agencies as a major problem.
What I see is going on. Is that Climate Change is very political. The science is coming out a little at a time. Most scientists don’t want to get involved in the political aspects. Example, the latest science is about Climate Greening. The earth is greener now do to warming. Protein increases by up to 30%. That is not what the Left wants to hear. This is most likely the term “Climate Greening” has been used on this site. The left does not want to talk about these subjects. To counter they are creating Left Climate Change and Right Climate Change to keep the issues confused. Sometimes it is best to close a department than to try and clean it up to get the political management out.
Accepted by whom?
Yes. Don’t see how that changes anything
I don’t think we do
No. You are. You are taking the data and making it mean something it doesn’t.