TL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 45

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.

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

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.

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.

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

“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 !”

On January 24 2013 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote:



Let's get the people we disagree with fired!

oes what exactly to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.