TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Sept 15, 2011 15:25:45 GMT -5
My mailman is skeptical too. Neither of them are atmospheric physicists.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 15, 2011 16:16:02 GMT -5
Sorry, I won't make fun of AGW proponents anymore.
They're becoming a target the size of the Pacific Ocean. Which I hear is getting even bigger.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 11, 2011 9:38:50 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 11, 2011 10:52:54 GMT -5
Pish posh.
When someone redacts key information from a report, or manipulates data to better serve their conclusion, we should never let it affect our belief that their conclusion is still the correct one.
Isn't that the lesson we learned from East Anglia? (and Russia, and the EPA report, and the IPCC report, etc., etc., )
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 11, 2011 14:28:03 GMT -5
Pish posh. When someone redacts key information from a report, or manipulates data to better serve their conclusion, we should never let it affect our belief that their conclusion is still the correct one. Isn't that the lesson we learned from East Anglia? (and Russia, and the EPA report, and the IPCC report, etc., etc., ) Citing examples of previous fraud on one side to support suppression of data on the other? I didn't think that was in the memo... www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdfBy the way, I think it's worse for a government agency tasked with environmental conservation to suppress data than it is for a scientist to release a report using flawed or fraudulent data into the world. The latter is subject to peer review.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 11, 2011 14:32:14 GMT -5
I wasn't supporting anything.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 11, 2011 14:50:17 GMT -5
I wasn't supporting anything. Sure, not explicitly anyway. When you react to government suppression of scientific data with "but the other side does it, too," what is that if not an attempt to water down criticism and support "your side" in this whole tired "debate?"
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 11, 2011 15:09:21 GMT -5
Hi. Have we met?
I was making a joke.
You think I actually use the phrase "pish posh"?
.....Well, I do!!
I do not support government suppression of data (non-classified data anyway), in opposition or support of climate change or pretty much any other issue. Ya' heeeerrrdd me, Eric Holder???
Speaking of whom, I think it's high time that Jersey re-claim his handle of "Attorney General." Cause we got a doozy of one running Justice at the moment.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,381
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 21, 2011 13:36:29 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,381
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 21, 2011 14:00:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Oct 24, 2011 20:06:21 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 24, 2011 20:15:47 GMT -5
Ok. Global Warming is happening. Now, considering that most of the suggested solutions involving making decisions that will effect the lives of hundreds of millions of people and have huge consequences (some intended, many unintended) on our economy, perhaps policy makers shouldn't dismiss this part of Muller's op-ed as quickly as Robinson did. "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. " [Muller's op-ed is here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html]
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 24, 2011 20:48:46 GMT -5
"The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight." Wow, even in high school debate I don't think I would have had the balls to mischaracterize someone's position to the extent that Robinson does.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Oct 24, 2011 23:23:10 GMT -5
Ok. Global Warming is happening. Now, considering that most of the suggested solutions involving making decisions that will effect the lives of hundreds of millions of people and have huge consequences (some intended, many unintended) on our economy, perhaps policy makers shouldn't dismiss this part of Muller's op-ed as quickly as Robinson did. "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. " [Muller's op-ed is here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html]So basically the argument is "yeah, we've come around to the fact that the atmospheric physicists are right - global warming is happening, and yeah, the chart that we've come up with matches the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the past 150 years which we have charts of also, and even though the volcano and sun activity theories have been thoroughly analyzed, let's pretend that it's because of lightning or something."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 25, 2011 16:02:24 GMT -5
Ok. Global Warming is happening. Now, considering that most of the suggested solutions involving making decisions that will effect the lives of hundreds of millions of people and have huge consequences (some intended, many unintended) on our economy, perhaps policy makers shouldn't dismiss this part of Muller's op-ed as quickly as Robinson did. "How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. " [Muller's op-ed is here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html]So basically the argument is "yeah, we've come around to the fact that the atmospheric physicists are right - global warming is happening, and yeah, the chart that we've come up with matches the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the past 150 years which we have charts of also, and even though the volcano and sun activity theories have been thoroughly analyzed, let's pretend that it's because of lightning or something." Yes, that's exactly what he said. More like, this: let's strip Al Gore politicization of the issue and see if some independent legitimate analysis of the data corresponds with what is being claimed. We can't even predict with any certainty what the weather is going to be like in 10 days, let along fully understand why a hurricane goes where it goes, predict when a volcano will erupt, or give more than 15 minutes warning for a tornado. You think that maybe -- just perhaps -- we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up one degree over the past however many years?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 25, 2011 17:46:09 GMT -5
Wait. We're allowed to call it "global warming" again?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Oct 25, 2011 22:45:48 GMT -5
We can't even predict with any certainty what the weather is going to be like in 10 days, let along fully understand why a hurricane goes where it goes, predict when a volcano will erupt, or give more than 15 minutes warning for a tornado. You think that maybe -- just perhaps -- we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up one degree over the past however many years? Nope - I think we clearly understand enough to know what our component in this is, that our contribution is most of the problem so far, and that - as TBird said - the only reason anyone wants to cast doubt on it is the enormity of the problem and the politics of the situation. If there were a $500,000 fix no one would be questioning the science and trying to compare it to hurricanes, tornadoes or whatever other version of "magnets, how do they work" you want to throw into this debate.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 26, 2011 6:09:04 GMT -5
We can't even predict with any certainty what the weather is going to be like in 10 days, let along fully understand why a hurricane goes where it goes, predict when a volcano will erupt, or give more than 15 minutes warning for a tornado. You think that maybe -- just perhaps -- we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up one degree over the past however many years? Nope - I think we clearly understand enough to know what our component in this is, that our contribution is most of the problem so far, and that - as TBird said - the only reason anyone wants to cast doubt on it is the enormity of the problem and the politics of the situation. If there were a $500,000 fix no one would be questioning the science and trying to compare it to hurricanes, tornadoes or whatever other version of "magnets, how do they work" you want to throw into this debate. And that's a bad thing how?
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Oct 30, 2011 15:59:57 GMT -5
So basically the argument is "yeah, we've come around to the fact that the atmospheric physicists are right - global warming is happening, and yeah, the chart that we've come up with matches the increasing amounts of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the past 150 years which we have charts of also, and even though the volcano and sun activity theories have been thoroughly analyzed, let's pretend that it's because of lightning or something." Yes, that's exactly what he said. More like, this: let's strip Al Gore politicization of the issue and see if some independent legitimate analysis of the data corresponds with what is being claimed. We can't even predict with any certainty what the weather is going to be like in 10 days, let along fully understand why a hurricane goes where it goes, predict when a volcano will erupt, or give more than 15 minutes warning for a tornado. You think that maybe -- just perhaps -- we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up one degree over the past however many years? And therefore, because we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up, we shouldn't do anything to reduce greenhouse gases. Makes perfect sense. Until we prove to a certainty that greenhouse gases are the direct cause, lets keep polluting at the same levels. Great plan.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 31, 2011 18:30:07 GMT -5
Yes, that's exactly what he said. More like, this: let's strip Al Gore politicization of the issue and see if some independent legitimate analysis of the data corresponds with what is being claimed. We can't even predict with any certainty what the weather is going to be like in 10 days, let along fully understand why a hurricane goes where it goes, predict when a volcano will erupt, or give more than 15 minutes warning for a tornado. You think that maybe -- just perhaps -- we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up one degree over the past however many years? And therefore, because we don't fully understand why the temperature has gone up, we shouldn't do anything to reduce greenhouse gases. Makes perfect sense. Until we prove to a certainty that greenhouse gases are the direct cause, lets keep polluting at the same levels. Great plan. Except that's not what I said. Maybe you should learn to read. I hope you didn't attend Georgetown.
|
|