User Tag List

First 11192021

Results 201 to 205 of 205

  1. #201
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    This doesn't surprise me. What I fear is that the anti-environmentalists will see this as vindication of their entire ideology.

    I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.
    Precisely. Anti-environmentalists will see this as confirmation that the entire process is corrupt, which I don't think is an accurate conclusion.

    I don't know why these scientists feel they have to do this. I can't see how it benefits them. If their conclusions are correct and accurate you shouldn't have to do any political posturing, and the data should really speak for itself. When you get into this, it seems like the risks of getting caught far outweigh the benefits of exaggeration.

    However, I do know the Himalayan Glacier report was specifically used to gain EU research funds, so it could have been a business decision. But that's a whole other issue.

  2. #202
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    This doesn't surprise me. What I fear is that the anti-environmentalists will see this as vindication of their entire ideology.

    I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.

    This won't help. - A U.S. ClimateGate?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #203
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    No vote, here; fact or falsity either is or isn't.
    Umm..actually that is how science works. There could be several views on any given subject. All we have is a number of studies showing support of one view. When one emerges with the most, then we know that's what we should follow for policy. There are no absolutes in most cases.

    How do we decide what is fact in science? How do we decide, for example, how a certain product or medication influences the human body? Many studies...most studies start pointing in one direction.

    If you have an alternative method for deciding what standards are met for facts then you should provide those and scientific studies that meet those standards. None seen yet.

    I meant objective and critical scrutiny, not politically or pseudo-spiritually motivated reinforcement. If a claim can't be validated by someone who theretofore intended to disprove it, the claim certainly isn't strong enough to instruct sweeping legislation. Given the now-disclosed record of tampering in CRU and resulting dubiety of claims from Mann's "Hockey Stick" to any number of IPCC reports, such a system doesn't exist among the "majority"; the IPCC's infographic depicts the fox guarding the hen house.
    Science journals presented above are not politically or pseudo-spirtually motivated. They are science journals. That's where peer review comes in. That's exactly what it's meant for is to look at the evidence and beyond the motivation. There's far more than the IPCC report and please remember, the IPCC report has as I said before hundreds of authors. A small minority of zealous scientists does not take away from the findings of the report and the many articles across a multitude of scientific peer-reviewed journals.

    This is interesting and I think it's great that they're evaluating the main results of the last report. I think what is emerging is that we just don't have the technology, as you suggested, to claim with any certainty what's going to happen in 2035. This, however, does not take away from what we know of the past and what scientists as a group are predicting about the next 10-15 years. There is evidence of glaciers melting due to changing temperatures that have risen concurrently with human activity. What is lacking is the evidence that backs up the urgency the authors were hoping to spur in the policymakers to get change (all glaciers melt by 2035). That is exaggerating the effects based on speculation but the effect exists.

    Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online
    Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25. My educated guess is that there will be somewhat less ice in 2035 than there is now, he said. But there is no way the glaciers will be close to disappearing. It doesnt seem to me that exaggerating the problems seriousness is going to help solve it.

    Been watching this with mild interest. But this news is not really encouraging. If we're going to be making responsible policy decisions, we need responsible scientists. I wonder how this affects the next IPCC panel's authors or process? Couple this with the fact that Copenhagan didn't really seem to do much of anything I don't know where the world is in terms of reform.
    Agree completely on the need for responsible scientists that can guide policy making. I think that's fair and the exaggeration was unnecessary and undermines the reputation of all the scientists because of the liberties taken by some. On Copenhagen, need to get back to this and LR's previous post. Part of it is developed vs developing world interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.

  4. #204
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009


    That's crazy. Truth and Scientific fact should be decided by majority?!?!!?? Socrates must be spinning in his tomb.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”

  5. #205
    FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    5w4 sx/sp
    LII Ti



    NEW HAVEN (The Borowitz Report)—After a report from the Yale Center on Climate Change Communication showed that the term “climate change” elicits relatively little concern from the American public, leading scientists are recommending replacing it with a new term: “You will be burnt to a crisp and die.”

    Other terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods” and “earth will be a fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life.”

    Scientists were generally supportive of the suggestions, with many favoring the term “your future will involve rowing a boat down a river of rotting corpses.”

    “Any of these terms would do a better job conveying the urgency of the problem,” Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for the newly renamed Yale Center for Oh My God Wake Up You Assholes, said.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson

    Life is about the journey, because we already know the destination.

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO