| Forum Index > General Forum |
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:10 TerribleNoobling wrote: Well the union of concerned scientists for environmental solutions should definitely be an impartial source on this one. If you actually looked at it you would see links to plenty of impartial sources. Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing. The evidence isn't on your side. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/dead-ringer | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:18 imallinson wrote: If you actually looked at it you would see links to plenty of impartial sources. The evidence isn't on your side. Read through the mails and get the context correct or trust someone who has done so. If you look at the kneejerk conspiration iess than a week after the scandal it is unlikely the sources have read it in context. | ||
|
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:23 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why the secrecy with the data, if there's nothing to hide? These guys are all a bunch of phonies, getting rich at the taxpayers expenses. You have a very odd view of the scientific establishment if you think researchers are rolling in money. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:21 TerribleNoobling wrote: Climategate wasn't the first time these guys got caught phonying up the data. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/04/dead-ringer You can really stop trying. Here are the investigations that cleared the University of East Anglia: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think? “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” Let's get the people we disagree with fired! User was warned for this post | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
On January 24 2013 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Let's get the people we disagree with fired! So, your sources so far... the dailymail and a article by a radio-host / investor... and this last quote of yours (wherever it may be from or regardless if it's true, though I would argue that a intellectually honest editor of a journal should be kept to high standards) does what exactly to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change? It's beyond belief how dishonest your method (alike others of your kin) of arguing is | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
| ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
oes what exactly to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change? It doesn't debunk climate change - the government climate models themselves and subsequent data from measuring the predicted hotspots (which aren't there) or the ocean temperature (which hasn't changed despite the predictions of the models) does that. What it does demonstrate is gross misconduct on the part of global warming alarmists. You really think it's appropriate to get people fired because they disagree with you? You don't see how this could stifle debate in any way? | ||
|
Quincel
119 Posts
We are told by people who study this sort of thing that we are produce too much CO2 and other gases (it seems methane is involved somewhere) and that it is heating the earth. OK. Then we are told that we need to decrease the amount we emit by just stopping doing stuff and all working really hard to 'be good'. Sometimes people say "Why don't we just research a miracle technology (nuclear power, efficient carbon capture, something else) which will fix the problem and let us keep living the good life?" but they are always shouted down by people saying "That's too risky, we can't risk the entire planet on science making an advance quickly enough." Now, I see that the approach does have some risk, but doesn't the 'Be Good' approach have far more risks? Surely mankind have never in history voluntarily made such sacrifices for so long as the green movement demands we make now, so isn't it simply impossible for us to pull it off? And if it is too hard, then why don't we just embrace the hope of a technological advance to save our bacon and spend all the money Kyoto will cost us on paying you guys to discover things which will let us win-win? That got a bit long, but I've always wanted to know what's wrong with my logic above, if anything. Thanks! | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
Academic debate is supposed to be....academic no?. I could equally (though it says nothing about neither the science or consensus itself) put rhetorical questions of this nature to you: If, as your quote suggests (but lacks the source), say a company or advocacy group "takes over" a journal and precedes to "let studies through" which do not fulfill the criteria of academic research.... that is not a problem? Moreover, to take your word for it in this case considering your sourcing so far is beyond dubious. You will probably keep throwing irrelevant or dishonest anecdotes when you are refuted (like so many other of your kin) so I'll probably stop. I'll leave the science to the scientists and stay clear of tabloid newspaper science edit: you could, in defense of your own credibility, acknowledge the refutes so far, though I'm guessing you're not going to do either...the cliche keeps on building | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
| ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
If, as your quote suggests (but lacks the source), say a company or advocacy group "takes over" a journal and precedes to "let studies through" which do not fulfill the criteria of academic research.... that is not a problem? It's not a company. It's scientists who disagree with the "consensus". I can't believe you guys really think it's appropriate to silence debate. That's not how it should work. If you disagree with someone, you don't force them not to be published, you prove them wrong and we're all the richer for the debate. You only need to silence people you disagree with if you cannot rebut their arguments. And that quote is from the leaked e-mails that I was so condescendingly instructed to read. Just google the quote if you want to source it. | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
Academic rigor and criteria are keywords here. And, If i understand correctly, you're quoting anecdotes from e-mails which have, by several inquires, been cleared of misconduct? What is said before or after, what is the context...? edit: conveniently, the actual inquiry reports on the e-mails you're quoting from conclude: On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. So that's another lie and dishonest post from your, especially considering this has already been stated within the last 2 pages | ||
|
Quincel
119 Posts
On January 24 2013 05:17 TerribleNoobling wrote: Quincel : I guess it depends on what you mean by "paying people to research stuff". Which technologies we use are best left to the market place. There supply and demand and the price system can determine which is the most economical. When you have the government subsidizing alternative energy you have resources being directed into areas which are political instead of efficient. Thus politicians support ethanol, because of the importance of Iowa in the primary system, even though it's not really that great an alternative. But the market absolutely can and will solve all energy problems. You have to understand that a hundred years ago, oil was just useless gunk in the ground. Mankind's creative ability is not to be underestimated. I agree the phrasing was inelegant, but I mean state funding of research in some way. Maybe tax breaks for R&D in a variety of areas, or government science being advanced in fundamental areas related to these (kinda like we research the human genome so medical companies research drugs based on that). | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On January 24 2013 05:10 Quincel wrote: This isn't really a question about the science, but I'll ask it anyway (apologies if it has already been answered). We are told by people who study this sort of thing that we are produce too much CO2 and other gases (it seems methane is involved somewhere) and that it is heating the earth. OK. Then we are told that we need to decrease the amount we emit by just stopping doing stuff and all working really hard to 'be good'. Sometimes people say "Why don't we just research a miracle technology (nuclear power, efficient carbon capture, something else) which will fix the problem and let us keep living the good life?" but they are always shouted down by people saying "That's too risky, we can't risk the entire planet on science making an advance quickly enough." Now, I see that the approach does have some risk, but doesn't the 'Be Good' approach have far more risks? Surely mankind have never in history voluntarily made such sacrifices for so long as the green movement demands we make now, so isn't it simply impossible for us to pull it off? And if it is too hard, then why don't we just embrace the hope of a technological advance to save our bacon and spend all the money Kyoto will cost us on paying you guys to discover things which will let us win-win? That got a bit long, but I've always wanted to know what's wrong with my logic above, if anything. Thanks! Some technologies, as you said, are miracle that would not happen in a foreseeable future. For example, efficient carbon capturing is not possible or worth an investment at all. This is because you will always spend more energy in order to convert the captured carbon into something else, or the captured carbon in the end would be released into atmosphere again by some way. Also, the most efficient way to capture carbon already exist, and it is called "photosynthesis", so the money spend on this type of research is best spent on planting more trees and deforestation prevention. For the technology that is possible, many grants have already been poured into those areas. But if we would only wait for the research result to come out, then we would run out of time first because the researches are not easily done and very time consuming. Even very basic research can take more than a year. So we have to slow down the escalation of the problem, while at the same time finding a way to amend it. | ||
|
Quincel
119 Posts
On January 24 2013 05:57 Veldril wrote: For the technology that is possible, many grants have already been poured into those areas. But if we would only wait for the research result to come out, then we would run out of time first because the researches are not easily done and very time consuming. Even very basic research can take more than a year. So we have to slow down the escalation of the problem, while at the same time finding a way to amend it. But if those actions cost money that could otherwise be spent on research isn't it not as simple as that? | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
