Global Warming Discussion

bigdvs wrote:

actually have not read it, but are you saying that there has been no PR for AGW, no money, no lobbying, no fraudlent half science politicalization of the facts?

i can't say that definitively but what i can say is this ...

the majority of scientists who support AGW are just that ... scientists working for universities and such ... as for PR and lobbying ... do you know how much money it takes to launch these kinds of campaigns!? ... NGO's like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. just don't have the money ... and they also realize that if they do something that is fraudulent - the consequences of that action far outweigh any benefit ..

if a tobacco company tells you their studies show that smoking a pack of day in front of kids doesn't cause any damage to the children - how would you approach that?

Polaris,

I dont assume the politcal world is as disconnected from those organizations as you do.

he still stands wrote:

The peer-reviewed journal process ensures nothing but complete objectivity and scientific validity. Rigorous rules must be followed and if they're doing primary research, the scientific method is used (or it is trash).

If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. These are the basic tenets of scientific theory; observation agrees with the intended result, it can be replicated, and there aren't observations that prove otherwise.

Now, for there to be some sort of conspiracy, there would have to be thousands of scientists involved and they'd all be getting paid a lot of money to do so.

Having worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal (Thistlethwaite, Paul C., Dale Schofield, Ronald J. Bauerly, and Paul A. Willits (2003) Emerging Issues in Business and Technology Conference Proceedings [I'm Paul]) I can't begin to tell you how absurd your statements are. If you claim that peer-reviewed science is corrupt, that means to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't 1960s Russia.

Thanks for the explination on peer review and how it is suppose to function. It does not take millions and thousands to stifle credible science.

he still stands wrote:

So,

bigdvs wrote:

You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?

The peer-reviewed journal process ensures nothing but complete objectivity and scientific validity. Rigorous rules must be followed and if they're doing primary research, the scientific method is used (or it is trash).

If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. These are the basic tenets of scientific theory; observation agrees with the intended result, it can be replicated, and there aren't observations that prove otherwise.

Now, for there to be some sort of conspiracy, there would have to be thousands of scientists involved and they'd all be getting paid a lot of money to do so.

Having worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal (Thistlethwaite, Paul C., Dale Schofield, Ronald J. Bauerly, and Paul A. Willits (2003) Emerging Issues in Business and Technology Conference Proceedings [I'm Paul]) I can't begin to tell you how absurd your statements are. If you claim that peer-reviewed science is corrupt, that means to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't 1960s Russia.

Speaking as someone who's been published in a number of peer-reviewed journals, this is not completely true. Bias is often instilled in research from the get-go, and even so, is often published. The word objectivity is what really bothers me with your post.

Should the reviewers be able to replicate the findings with the supplied data? Yes. Is that often done? No. Even if it was, that doesn't mean that there wasn't bias instilled at the outset of the scientific method. In other words, some seek to create evidence for their underlying hypothesis.

One can use statistics and even the scientific method to almost always prove their original hypothesis. The way you do it is to start with the hypothesis, then test it using this data in this manner. If it doesn't get your point across, toss it. Then do it again from another angle, maybe different data, maybe a different series of empirical approaches. If it doesn't get your point across, toss it. This goes on and on until they find the data, and the method, that reveals statistically significant results, supporting the original bias hypothesis.

Statistics can be misused and abused. Anyone who says differently is not being truthful.

bennett13 wrote:

I don't know about all of you, but where I live, the climate changes at least twice a year. Every March, it seems that a big wave of global warming hits my location, causing a sharp rise in temperature that continues until July or August. Then, usually around October, the climate changes yet again, and the days start becoming gradually cooler! Then the process seems to repeat itself. I'm not a scientist, but I have a theory that the blazing heat in the middle of the year might be caused by a "star" in the center of our solar system. I further hypothesize that the aforementioned "star" may just be the big yellow orb we see gradually moving across the sky every day.

Thoughts?

:idea: I don't know much, but this sounds like a legit hypothesis to me.

these would my key priorities in addressing global warming:

1. education - too many people are "learning" about global warming from the wrong places ... we need to break down the science into it's simplest principles so, people aren't distracted by fraud graphs and personal scandals ...

2. embark on a major conservation strategy - which includes primarily reductions in consumption and efficiencies

3. i would develop a plan to be at least 75% renewables by the year 2050

4. i would develop a transportation strategy that would see better public transit from the municipal to the national level ... high speed trains that connect cities that are integrated with a local transportation network ... invest in infrastructure that would allow for clean transportation (whether they be plugs or hydrogen gas stations)

5. i would create trade incentives for goods produced environmentally and socially responsible

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?

dude ... you've ignored my point about scientific associations in this entire thread and keep putting out lies ... essentially making you a troll ... at least bigdvs who shares similar views as you has the open-mindedness to listen and to explore ... he may not agree but he's listening and contributing to the discussion ... you want to be taken seriously!? ... you need to contribute instead of just trolling ...

The old your trolling device. Very nice. You seem to have ignored my main point - what of the fraud report?

To you post above this one. I actually agree with some of it. How much would going 75% renewable cost?