By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Anybody who believed global warming was man made are having questions now?

megaman79 on 19 February 2010
Kasz216 said:

Quite honestly, it should be law that you can't publish scientific data unless you make all of your research, methods, EVERYTHING available via a database either provided by you or the government. The only reason this isn't the case currently i'd guess is so corporations can lure sceintists who also care about publishing rather then just pure money making.

The problem with that is that most readers do not check for themselves anyway. Most journalists don't check for themselves, why would the public?

The other issue is that confidentiality, arguably a valued right in the US, would also be a huge conflict. If governments, no matter how small and insignificant they are, maintain exclusive privilege over certain areas (eg. terrorism/security) why don't others?

 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Around the Network
sguy78 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

 Tell me how my facts are wrong. Your arguments have been based on "science" that is proving to be made up based on political grounds.

If thats the case why do many conservative prime ministers and presidents support climate change science? In my view, it is only political because the republicans refuse to support ANY view of the democrats, and Obama.

Even when he has sold out far left values on Nuclear, to give more middle ground, they still don't support him. Well thats according to conservative media, who obviously reflect ALL right views on ALL issues.

If you knew anything about the American Media, you would know that the vast majority of them are left wing propagandists, and follow the left blindly to whatever means. I'm no expert on Eurpoean politics, but from what I can gather, for the most part, it is far more left leaning than in my country. I highly doubt those right leaning politicians woud be considered right leaning in the U.S. If you knew anything about all the crap Obama was forcing down our throats, and knew anything about our Constitution, you shouldn't question why Republicans are trying to stop his radical policies at every turn.

Oh you mean continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing interegation practices, continuing unconstitutional wiretaps and things like that.

Yea, sounds like continuing 90% of the things the republicans did makes him an extreme liberal in your view.

So we should just leave Iraq, and Afganistan to themselves? We leave without allowing those countries to be ready when we do go, and we are looking at more of the same in a generation. Everything Obama is doing is trampling over the Constitution. Mandated Health Care is being shoved down our throats by him, trying to tell us it falls within the commerce clause. Not puchasing a product does not fall under commerce. This isn't even the point of the thread however, so please feel free to bring your tired talking points elsewhere.



highwaystar101 on 19 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.

Quite honestly, it should be law that you can't publish scientific data unless you make all of your research, methods, EVERYTHING available via a database either provided by you or the government. The only reason this isn't the case currently i'd guess is so corporations can lure sceintists who also care about publishing rather then just pure money making.

We did have a scientific database, it was called the Internet. Then porn found its way onto it and we have never looked back since lol.

...

Kidding of course, but I agree there should be law that science should be as transparent and as unbiased as possible. One of the major fundamentals of the scientific process is allowing others to critically evaluate your work, and that can't be done unless you provide your results and methods openly. When you hide results it's not science, it's lying.

I don't think that a government databank would make much difference though. I go on many scientific databanks when I am doing research, and it's pretty much all there; you may have to go to several databanks to find one thing, but it's there. The thing is, you're always going to have people who will purposely not publish results for whatever reason, I think a government databank may not make much odds to that.

But you are right, it should be the case where people can not hide their results and climate change is a perfect example of why.



megaman79 on 19 February 2010
sguy78 said:

So we should just leave Iraq, and Afganistan to themselves? We leave without allowing those countries to be ready when we do go, and we are looking at more of the same in a generation. Everything Obama is doing is trampling over the Constitution. Mandated Health Care is being shoved down our throats by him, trying to tell us it falls within the commerce clause. Not puchasing a product does not fall under commerce. This isn't even the point of the thread however, so please feel free to bring your tired talking points elsewhere.

No, thats correct. But you brought up politics as a motivation as to why you personally shouldn't believe the science. I simply wanted to demonstrate how similar your Democrat president was, thats all.

 

http://www.unep.org/COMPENDIUM2009/

Over 400 articles. Show me the proof that each of these research papers is wrong and i will change my mind.

 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

sguy78 on 19 February 2010
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

So we should just leave Iraq, and Afganistan to themselves? We leave without allowing those countries to be ready when we do go, and we are looking at more of the same in a generation. Everything Obama is doing is trampling over the Constitution. Mandated Health Care is being shoved down our throats by him, trying to tell us it falls within the commerce clause. Not puchasing a product does not fall under commerce. This isn't even the point of the thread however, so please feel free to bring your tired talking points elsewhere.

No, thats correct. But you brought up politics as a motivation as to why you personally shouldn't believe the science. I simply wanted to demonstrate how similar your Democrat president was, thats all.

 

http://www.unep.org/COMPENDIUM2009/

Over 400 articles. Show me the proof that each of these research papers is wrong and i will change my mind.

 

Even better, show me the proof that they are right.



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 19 February 2010
sguy78 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.

So I would gather that you don't think that industrialized nations should enter into binding carbon trading treaties, as was the goal at Copenhagen? Look, if something can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. Kodak was dumping a ton of chemicals into Lake Ontario via the Gennesee River for years up until my early childhood, and there was provable evidence this was harming the lake. I am glad they were forced to clean up their act. However, I don't want my electric bill to go up, or jobs to be lost in my country because China and India aren't trading carbon emissions like everyone else, and are selling product for half as much as the rest of us. Not on something that hasn't been proven, and as of late has actually for no small part been proven to be fraudulent.

I think that countries should not enter into carbon trading treaties, I have already stated that. I think an honest pollution tax is needed, non specific to climate change, but there is no chance of getting that.



Kasz216 on 19 February 2010

You don't need EVERYONE to check MM all it takes is a few.


Also those 400 papers have already been disproven... in this very thread. they're all built on jones work which has been disproven.



megaman79 on 19 February 2010
sguy78 said:
megaman79 said:
sguy78 said:

So we should just leave Iraq, and Afganistan to themselves? We leave without allowing those countries to be ready when we do go, and we are looking at more of the same in a generation. Everything Obama is doing is trampling over the Constitution. Mandated Health Care is being shoved down our throats by him, trying to tell us it falls within the commerce clause. Not puchasing a product does not fall under commerce. This isn't even the point of the thread however, so please feel free to bring your tired talking points elsewhere.

No, thats correct. But you brought up politics as a motivation as to why you personally shouldn't believe the science. I simply wanted to demonstrate how similar your Democrat president was, thats all.

 

http://www.unep.org/COMPENDIUM2009/

Over 400 articles. Show me the proof that each of these research papers is wrong and i will change my mind.

 

Even better, show me the proof that they are right.

Every major scientific organisation in the world agrees that is happening. Even if you distrusted ALL of these sources you would have to atleast acknowledge that, in terms of odds, the huge number of research conclusions favours the other view anyway.

But no doubt you will not even believe this statistical argument.

@highwaystar. Relative to open and accountable science results, isn't that exactly what the EPA is doing in the US now?

While corporations are fighting the EPA, and trying to stop any attempt at measuring or acknowledging CO2 problems, the introduction of new laws will actually force a type of tax on these industries.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

Kasz216 on 19 February 2010
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

Leave Britney Liberals alone *waves hands furiously* LEAVE THEM ALONE!

Anyway, I want to address your comment a couple up. People deleting data on climate change is disgusting, and yet it has been done for years. They have held back the the truth in many cases. That said, from what I can tell the recent news hasn't been about information kept back that would falsify the climate change theory; rather it is rejecting information to purposely skew results so they appear much worse, which is extremely bad, but does not falsify the theory.

To be honest, the lack of transparency leaves many questions. I think the results that have been withheld should be examined as it is damaging to the scientific process. These results could hold some significance and show the way with climate change, they could show the truth of the situation. But I disagree that the withheld results falsify the theory like you implied.

Then again, as I have not seen said results I can in no way be certain, and neither can anyone else.

Quite honestly, it should be law that you can't publish scientific data unless you make all of your research, methods, EVERYTHING available via a database either provided by you or the government. The only reason this isn't the case currently i'd guess is so corporations can lure sceintists who also care about publishing rather then just pure money making.

We did have a scientific database, it was called the Internet. Then porn found its way onto it and we have never looked back since lol.

...

Kidding of course, but I agree there should be law that science should be as transparent and as unbiased as possible. One of the major fundamentals of the scientific process is allowing others to critically evaluate your work, and that can't be done unless you provide your results and methods openly. When you hide results it's not science, it's lying.

I don't think that a government databank would make much difference though. I go on many scientific databanks when I am doing research, and it's pretty much all there; you may have to go to several databanks to find one thing, but it's there. The thing is, you're always going to have people who will purposely not publish results for whatever reason, I think a government databank may not make much odds to that.

But you are right, it should be the case where people can not hide their results and climate change is a perfect example of why.


I think it would change a lot... be different. I mean look at this stuff... if Phil Jones was forced to provide his data... climate research would look DRASTICALLY different.

megaman79 on 19 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
You don't need EVERYONE to check MM all it takes is a few.


Also those 400 papers have already been disproven... in this very thread. they're all built on jones work which has been disproven.

Good to see you didn't even click the links, in this article - http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2973-climate-scientist-admits-no-warming-in-15-years, taking you to the Times article.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were (was) thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue."



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.