Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
This one right here is a perfect example of a dingbat post.
|
No HOZ, this is a perfect example of a post where you can't freakin' read and have taken information out of context.
Quote:
|
You ignore 9/10 tens of what I posted and forgotten what you yourself have posted.
|
Its because 99.9999% of the crap you post is noise. You don't even comprehend what the information is saying.
Quote:
What you have said....
Do you bother to source check ANY of the crap you post? Do you bother to check where these groups get their funding???
What I said...
*Lanny being conservative doesn't make them wrong. Being big oil doesn't make them wrong. Without evidence that that their data is wrong saying that these sources are biased is just another one of your dingbat diatribes.
|
What it does is provide motive for the research. You probably are not aware, but disclosure of potential bias is a requirement for a paper to be peer reviewed. It is this potential hiding of this bias that brings the research into question. I'll put it into terms that you can understand. A review of Oiler prospects by Reggie Dunlop on CalgaryPuck is probably NOT going to provide valid data. Unless the relationship of potential bias is disclosed, the research is considered tainted. Researchers who do not do this can end up in a world of hurt, losing credibility and face penalties at the universities they work.
Quote:
*to discount evidence to the contrary of their beliefs due to their sources of funding leaves you with these options.
1. The opposition are pure Evil. They are out to destroy the earth. Leave nothing behind for their offspring and get rich off of their funding while manipulating data.
|
No, what it means is that there is a high level of distrust towards those scientists who get involved in generating data to support corporate ideals of profit over social responsibility. If you can put away aside the melodrama that is ever present in every single one of your posts (a conservative staple) you will see that at no time did I say they were veil or out to destroy the planet. All I have done is indicated their undisclosed relationships and funding sources, which brings their research into question. That is a part of the scientific research process, whether you like it or not. This is why all of that wonderful work in the health effects of cigarettes done by the plethora of research scientists funded by tobacco are not accepted by the scientific community.
Quote:
That defies logic. So.....that leaves us with these options
1. They are right. Jansen and Suzuki due to their exuberance have exaggerated the conclusions from existing data, or have errors in their data and have chosen to ignore them.
2. They are incorrect.
3. More data is needed an the current media driven hysteria is unwarranted and talking heads like Jansen and Suzuki should shut up.
|
Now you're trying to narrow the scope and using extremes to try and discount the vast majority of data involved (another common conservative practice). Jansen [sic] (I'll believe you were refering to Hansen) is a completely different story than Suzuki, so lumping them together makes zero sense. Both hold dramatically different views on the subject matter but do share one common belief, that we are doing damage to the planet and must alter our behaviors. This belief is shared by thousands of other scientists around the world. That has been confirmed through cooperative efforts like the IPCC reports and the support for political initiatives like Kyoto. The science communities from countries around the world, including 132 developing nations (China inclusinve), believe that climate change is real and that man is a signifiant contributor to those changes. This is NOT just two men leading the charge. This a collective effort of thousands and thousands of people from the scientific and political communities from maround the globe coming together to try and find answers to this problem. A concensus has been reached. Live with it.
Quote:
Then you have contradict yourself.....
Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA,
|
Nice selective editting job you hack (another tactic conservatives love to abuse). Try quoting the whole sentence you ass.
"
Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA, etc. all use scholastically peer reviewed papers as the sources of their information."
Also, taken in context it was making fun of you and your sources. You always try and put down these sources, but they are the sources that are considered the record of society. They are expected to hold to the highest levels of integrity in what they publish, and they do so.
They are all quality sources, which is why I used them. Reading comprehension is a bitch for you, isn't it. They also showed the power of the political agenda in the United States and just how easy it is to twist the publics perception of the facts on climate change. NASA is the end game for this type of research and the Bush Administration went out of their way to censor and silence the top scientists at NASA and the importance of the view on climate change. The Bush Administration has taken the position similar to yours, that the science is not in. Here is the top scientist, speaking on behalf of the scientists at the government's top agency on science, saying that the science is in and humans are a significant cause of climate change.
Quote:
Nevermid James Hansen is from where???? But then you confirm it....
since it was NASA's own James Hansen who finally was fed up with politicians rewriting scientific fact and blew the whistle. The science is in, the majority of the world supports it, its only a disinformation campaign that clouds the issue in North America.
So is Hansen a crappy or good source Lanny?
|
Been covered. NASA is the final source for the government on this type of research. They were censored because of their disagreement with the Administrations position. Bush, and his ties to Big Oil, did not want the government position to be in alignment with the vast majority of the scientific community, so they censored them and changed the facts. Funny, but I could have sworn that you, and others here, said that doesn't happen?
Quote:
Lastly.....
Are employees, execs, and investors of Oil companies, Big Airline manufacturers, Car makers, etc.... (All American, of course) all hell bent on destroying the Earth no matter what or so uncaring they are willing to ignore the truth or ignore others manipulating the truth? Or worse the scientists they do fund are ALL evil and are willing to manipulate the data no matter the outcome.
|
There we go, more melodrama.
Quote:
You'd have to be completely delusional to believe in such things.
So that leaves you 3 options
1. Hansen is correct, though a crappy source according to you
2. His critics are right and he is promoting a number of logical fallacies that promotes political actions not supported by real-world evidence
3. Unsure....need more data.
|
No HOZ, you'd have to be uneducated and uninformed not to recognize that corporations pay vast amounts of money for reserach to be conducted to support their political and economic position. Tobacco did it for years and got away with it. Drug companies do it every day. Same with chemical companies. The automotive industry is in the same boat. All corporations focus on the bottom line first and care little of their social responsibility. Good lord, car manufactures have teams of actuaries who try to figure out if it would cost them less to fix problems with their vehicles or just pay out settlements in law suits. Corporations don't care about anything but money and value to the shareholder.
The job of these scientists is not to prove anything, just to obfuscate. They are to inject ANY research into the discussion just to slow the momentum of the moment and cause people to pause. To refute these studies requires that the scientific method be repeated, taking up time and energy. This is exactly what the companies are paying for. Consider the profits in each quarter last year for Exxon Mobil and why they would want to drag the debate on further. Your answer can be found there.