megaman79 said: @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.

The Environmental Protection Agency? It's one of their main interests of course, but I just looked and their mission is to protect human health and the environment, and also be leaders in the environmental research effort. Anyway, the kind of law we would be talking about would be global and apply to all areas of science (with minor specific changes for each field of course)

Kasz216 said: highwaystar101 said: 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.

Oh no, I agree. I am saying that they should be forced to provide their research openly too. It should be the law to be transparent with methods and results, etc... Cases like Phil Jones highlight the need for this.

I was just questioning the use of a sole government databank, I don't particularly think it would be much better than the current databanks out there. That's all.

megaman79 said: 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."

That's actually a different issue. Jones work was also admitted to be faulty, which is infact the basis of modern climate research. though yes, the data back then was also destroyed and suspect. Thank you for helping my point and hurting your own. No discernable climate change in the last 15 years = hasn't happened in 15 years according to science. Yet all those papers likely claim changes that don't really exist.

megaman79 said: 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.

How can you be so sure that each and every one of those articles are not fabricated in one way or another? It's in scientist's best interest to proclaim, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" in order to acquire more funding. It is not fact until it has been proven. Again, it is not fact until it is proven. Science.

The whole answer - B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

I know how people like to quote correctly. Well that is the whole quote.

sguy78 said: How can you be so sure that each and every one of those articles are not fabricated in one way or another? It's in scientist's best interest to proclaim, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" in order to acquire more funding. It is not fact until it has been proven. Again, it is not fact until it is proven. Science.

Yea thats right, Governments are actually interested in funding research thats going to cost them millions in the long run.Thats not forgetting the application of profit, and financial bias, to ANY OTHER ORGANISATION involded with this issue.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/

-- Not too many Scientific Organisations or Universities in this list.

 

megaman79 said: sguy78 said: How can you be so sure that each and every one of those articles are not fabricated in one way or another? It's in scientist's best interest to proclaim, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling" in order to acquire more funding. It is not fact until it has been proven. Again, it is not fact until it is proven. Science. Yea thats right, Governments are actually interested in funding research thats going to cost them millions in the long run.Thats not forgetting the application of profit, and financial bias, to ANY OTHER ORGANISATION involded with this issue. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/ -- Not too many Scientific Organisations or Universities in this list.

Are you actually serious with your statement that governments don't like to waste money? Anyway, it's about getting MORE money for their coffers. This is about a massive global redistribution of wealth, and it always has been. Also, of course corporations are applying for the ability to profit from this. Haven't you ever heard of the old snake oil salesman on a soapbox?

megaman79 said: The whole answer - B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm I know how people like to quote correctly. Well that is the whole quote.

I did read that entire quote... and once again your proving my point. Not significant = not happening. Over longer periods of time is basically just saying "eventually the numbers will come out how i want them... i mean... something." The wolds climate changes naturally so yes... if you wait long enough... eventually a trend will show.

sguy78 said: Are you actually serious with your statement that governments don't like to waste money? Anyway, it's about getting MORE money for their coffers. This is about a massive global redistribution of wealth, and it always has been.

Ofcourse i am serious. You really think the big companies, which political parties almost entirely rely on for campaign funding, want to pay for emissions? Governments wouldn't dare to screw with their major contributors unless they had to. Are you serious?

You might believe what Alex Jones is saying, but there's a reason why most people don't. There is no massive global redistribution of wealth, only the distribution that the US approved of, when they decided to make EVERYTHING in China and India.

megaman79 said: sguy78 said: Are you actually serious with your statement that governments don't like to waste money? Anyway, it's about getting MORE money for their coffers. This is about a massive global redistribution of wealth, and it always has been. Ofcourse i am serious. You really think the big companies, which political parties almost entirely rely on for campaign funding, want to pay for emissions? Governments wouldn't dare to screw with their major contributors unless they had to. Are you serious? You might believe what Alex Jones is saying, but there's a reason why most people don't. There is no massive global redistribution of wealth, only the distribution that the US approved of, when they decided to make EVERYTHING in China and India.

Cap and Trade is redistribution of wealth. Thank God the Democrats lost the Senate Seat is Mass. when they did. The Democrats are not the U.S. They lost that seat in the most liberal state in the country because they have far overreached, and the people told them so. Don't be so naive, to believe government doesn't see Cap and Trade as just another way to tax people who have already been taxed to their limit.