Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science

Page 10 of 14 [ 209 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Dec 2010, 2:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kon wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a policy that will lead to me and my family freezing in the dark is going to be imposed, I want the basis of the imposition to be of the highest quality. If we are going to be impoverished it should be for a damned good reason.


Does fate of our species sound like a good reason? That's the argument given with respect to global warming. As weird as this sounds I don't really care about my species but I just hate all the lies, like the claims that there's major debate among climate scientists.


That presumes the current warming era is exclusively or largely the result of human activity, a proposition which is far from proven.

If you want to make sure the human race survives support the construction of space ships to get a portion of our species off this planet.

ruveyn


We have yet to successfully build a self-contained environment capable of supporting a small group of humans ON this planet; the idea that we could do so OFF of the planet, on space ships, is laughable at this point. We're stuck with what we have.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Dec 2010, 10:51 am

LKL wrote:

We have yet to successfully build a self-contained environment capable of supporting a small group of humans ON this planet; the idea that we could do so OFF of the planet, on space ships, is laughable at this point. We're stuck with what we have.


We have to work harder. And all good things take time to make.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Dec 2010, 10:52 am

ruveyn wrote:

We have yet to successfully build a self-contained environment capable of supporting a small group of humans ON this planet; the idea that we could do so OFF of the planet, on space ships, is laughable at this point. We're stuck with what we have.


We have to work harder. And all good things take time to make.

If a piece of our species does not get off the planet and find somewhere else to live then our species is doomed regardless of what environmental steps we take. The Sun has a finite lifetime. No Sun, no us.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

30 Dec 2010, 2:48 pm

We are so focussed on uncertainty. The cold, hard reality is that there is virtually nothing that is certain in science. The Atomic Theory is still simply a theory. But it has demonstrated itself to be an excellent predictive model, so we rely on it.

Now I am not suggesting that climate models have the weight of experimental support that the Atomic Theory does. But they are the model that presently has the broadest base of support in the scientific community, and they should not be discarded simply because uncertainty remains.

But even if the science was not there, there would still be an important justification for movement on energy production and use: economics. Economic growth depends entirely upon innovation--making more with less. By finding ways of using less energy, and using energy in ways that do not impose additional costs, we can promote greater prosperity.

Our economic productivity is largely tied to a single source of energy: petroleum. Any economist will tell you that a failure to diversify your source of inputs is going go have cost consequences down the line. A political agenda that ties our short term economic activity to a single commodity is a political agenda that pursues quick profit at the expense of real growth.

I don't particularly care whether climate science is proved or not. But I care very deeply that we lack the political will to look beyond the interests of a market plutocracy.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

30 Dec 2010, 4:54 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
mcg wrote:
So how have climate scientists established causation? Have there been controlled experiments?


They have demonstrated correlation using statistics and some of those statistics are highly questionable.

We do not have climate science. We have climate models.


I already explained that most climate models are in fact deterministic, not statistical.


You mean the same climate models that are arguably bogus... :roll:


You and your Fox News sources simply have no knowledge or understanding of climate science. There's a 99% chance that anything you type on the subject will be bogus. Give up.


Seriously, since it looks like the only thing you have to back up your argument is a bunch of discredited scientists and personal attacks, I'd say the 99% chance is that your argument is bogus.

marshall wrote:
You should really stick to what you're good at. Go back to your chalk board.


Well, funny that would be science and technology, seriously do you know anything about academic integrity? That goes to everyone that is bashing Fox News for reporting on Climategate. Fox News was right to report the way it did on this issue, because the scientists through every research project they were on in doubt with what came out concerning the e-mails.

To spell it out, EVERY CLIMATE STUDY THEY DID MAY NOT EVEN BE CREDIBLE!! ! Scientists are supposed to report the results whether it proves or disproves what they were trying to test for. They are not supposed to "massage" the numbers to get the results they want. Furthermore, the fact the studies may not be credible, puts climate models in question because they used the suspect data to create those models.

Since you claim to be a scientist, you should know the seriousness of the situation marshall.


Yawn... Just because you type stridently in boldface capitol letters doesn't make anything you say have merit. Besides, you have done nothing but repeat yourself yet again.

Get this through your head, ACCUSING SCIENTISTS OF FORGING DATA WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS SIMPLY SLANDER!! !! !! !!. See, I can type in all caps just as well as you. If you want to keep claiming that they are discredited you MUST provide evidence that they forged data.

The scientists aren't discredited. They have been slandered by people like you who have no idea what they are talking about.


To turn this around, I could argue that you are slandering Drudge Report and the people at Fox News, by spewing the remarks that they slandered these scientists, especially since you have absolutely no proof that they slandered the scientists. Seriously, there have been reports which quoted things from e-mails, which was pointed out earlier. You say there is a site with all the e-mails on it, you want to show Fox News is being untruthful then I say have fun reading a few thousand e-mails.

What is it with liberals and their pathological hatred towards Fox News anyways.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

31 Dec 2010, 1:43 am

Inuyasha wrote:
To turn this around, I could argue that you are slandering Drudge Report and the people at Fox News, by spewing the remarks that they slandered these scientists, especially since you have absolutely no proof that they slandered the scientists.
I have proof that you and your sources are making allegations of misconduct by scientists without providing evidence to back up the allegations.

Quote:
Seriously, there have been reports which quoted things from e-mails, which was pointed out earlier.

E-mail quotes and snippets of Matlab code were miss-interpreted by a bunch of hackers and non-scientists who really had no comprehension of what they were even reading.

Quote:
You say there is a site with all the e-mails on it, you want to show Fox News is being untruthful then I say have fun reading a few thousand e-mails.

That is YOUR job NOT MINE. If one party alleges another party of a crime, it is up to the first party to provide evidence proving the guilt of the second. Otherwise innocence is presumed.
Quote:
What is it with liberals and their pathological hatred towards Fox News anyways.

What is it with right-wingers and their pathological hatred towards Nance Pelosi, Barack Obama, George Soros, etc. anyways?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Dec 2010, 7:33 am

visagrunt wrote:

Our economic productivity is largely tied to a single source of energy: petroleum. Any economist will tell you that a failure to diversify your source of inputs is going go have cost consequences down the line. A political agenda that ties our short term economic activity to a single commodity is a political agenda that pursues quick profit at the expense of real growth.

.


Solution: pave North America from coast to coast with fast breeder reactors. And the first ecologist who objects on environmental grounds, gag him for long enough to get the job done. The eco-freaks want the rest of us to freeze in the dark.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Solution: pave North America from coast to coast with fast breeder reactors. And the first ecologist who objects on environmental grounds, gag him for long enough to get the job done. The eco-freaks want the rest of us to freeze in the dark.

ruveyn


I have no objection to nuclear as an energy source, but I do note two caveats. First, replacing one dominant energy source with another does not provide for diversification. Second, fissile material is non-renewable (though not with the same gravity as hydrocarbons), whereas energy generation from ongoing solar activity (solar, hydroelectric, tidal, wind, etc.) is for all meaningful purposes ever-present. By the time wind, rain and tides stop, we will have long since found a new neighborhood.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

31 Dec 2010, 5:45 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
To turn this around, I could argue that you are slandering Drudge Report and the people at Fox News, by spewing the remarks that they slandered these scientists, especially since you have absolutely no proof that they slandered the scientists.
I have proof that you and your sources are making allegations of misconduct by scientists without providing evidence to back up the allegations.


You have yet to prove that Fox News did not have evidence to back up what they stated... Furthermore if you're going to accuse Drudge Report (which is considered to be more reputable than the AP) of lieing, I suggest you have something to back it up.

marshall wrote:
Quote:
Seriously, there have been reports which quoted things from e-mails, which was pointed out earlier.

E-mail quotes and snippets of Matlab code were miss-interpreted by a bunch of hackers and non-scientists who really had no comprehension of what they were even reading.


Prove they were taking it out of context, if the hackers were good enough to hack into the system, I think they could read simple matlab code. For goodness sakes, matlab isn't that hard to figure out.

marshall wrote:
Quote:
You say there is a site with all the e-mails on it, you want to show Fox News is being untruthful then I say have fun reading a few thousand e-mails.

That is YOUR job NOT MINE. If one party alleges another party of a crime, it is up to the first party to provide evidence proving the guilt of the second. Otherwise innocence is presumed.


I'm going to throw that right back in your face. Cause it wasn't just Fox News reporting on this...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/

I suggest you read it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 23794.html

Quote:
What is it with liberals and their pathological hatred towards Fox News anyways.

What is it with right-wingers and their pathological hatred towards Nance Pelosi, Barack Obama, George Soros, etc. anyways?[/quote]

Uh how about they behave like power-hungry ego-maniacs...



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

31 Dec 2010, 6:44 pm

@ Inuyasha

Why don't you read this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

It explains how e-mail quotes were taken out of context to try and discredit climate scientists. And before you criticize the source, please note that other primary sources are linked to the article at the bottom.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Dec 2010, 6:47 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Solution: pave North America from coast to coast with fast breeder reactors. And the first ecologist who objects on environmental grounds, gag him for long enough to get the job done. The eco-freaks want the rest of us to freeze in the dark.

ruveyn


I have no objection to nuclear as an energy source, but I do note two caveats. First, replacing one dominant energy source with another does not provide for diversification. Second, fissile material is non-renewable (though not with the same gravity as hydrocarbons), whereas energy generation from ongoing solar activity (solar, hydroelectric, tidal, wind, etc.) is for all meaningful purposes ever-present. By the time wind, rain and tides stop, we will have long since found a new neighborhood.


Going to fission will get the Middle East off our backs. Then we won't have to spend so much for war which means we can use the money saved to build diverse sources of energy (minimizing the burning of hydrocarbons). Eventually we will have to either develop controlled fusion or learn to use the sun to produce amounts of energy required for industry. Going to fission is just a first step, not a final solution. If there is a final solution to our energy problem it is the sun which will last for billions of years. Another possibility is mining geothermal energy from the inside of the earth. The underground heat source is good for at least a billion years which is much longer than our species will last.

One wthing we do NOT have and that is a shortage of energy.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

31 Dec 2010, 7:55 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
You have yet to prove that Fox News did not have evidence to back up what they stated...

What a ridiculous thing to say. It is impossible to prove an absence. It is up to you (or whoever makes such allegations) to be able to give a legitimate response when asked "Where is your evidence?"

Quote:
Prove they were taking it out of context, if the hackers were good enough to hack into the system, I think they could read simple matlab code. For goodness sakes, matlab isn't that hard to figure out.

Meh, my bet is that they were probably just script kiddies rather than actual hackers or even crackers. And part of the problem is that these people have no understanding of the actual science or typical research practice, so they weren't able to understand the distinction between normal internal conversations and an actual scandal.

Even if they did have Matlab code that was doing something funny, that wouldn't mean anything. It's extremely common to hack something together just for internal use or testing ideas, while knowing that it is not going to produce publication-quality output.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Dec 2010, 8:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ruveyn wrote:

We have yet to successfully build a self-contained environment capable of supporting a small group of humans ON this planet; the idea that we could do so OFF of the planet, on space ships, is laughable at this point. We're stuck with what we have.


We have to work harder. And all good things take time to make.

If a piece of our species does not get off the planet and find somewhere else to live then our species is doomed regardless of what environmental steps we take. The Sun has a finite lifetime. No Sun, no us.

ruveyn

We have a few million years to worry about that. We have considerably less to worry about what we are doing to the planet ourselves.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

31 Dec 2010, 11:15 pm

marshall wrote:
@ Inuyasha

Why don't you read this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

It explains how e-mail quotes were taken out of context to try and discredit climate scientists. And before you criticize the source, please note that other primary sources are linked to the article at the bottom.


I can actually throw that site's credibility into question quite easily.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Annenberg Public Policy Center is a leftist organization.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts

I'm not even going to bother doing serious digging this time cause I have already shown Factcheck.org being funded by a group that had a domestic terrorist as a board member and they knew he was a domestic terrorist.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

31 Dec 2010, 11:30 pm

Factcheck.org got money from a group run by a guy who once spoke to Bill Moyers? Holy leftist bias, Batman!

So factcheck.org gets their funding from an organization run by a liberal. So what? They can still be reasonable fact-checkers, as evidenced by the fact that they call out liberals as well as conservatives. Until you stop getting all of your "facts" from right-wing blogs, you have absolutely no room to criticize a source that has "ties" to the Left.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

31 Dec 2010, 11:37 pm

Orwell wrote:
Factcheck.org got money from a group run by a guy who once spoke to Bill Moyers? Holy leftist bias, Batman!

So factcheck.org gets their funding from an organization run by a liberal. So what? They can still be reasonable fact-checkers, as evidenced by the fact that they call out liberals as well as conservatives. Until you stop getting all of your "facts" from right-wing blogs, you have absolutely no room to criticize a source that has "ties" to the Left.


They were started by a group that had Bill Ayers as a chairman if I remember correctly, and it is even in their own homepage that they are directly funded by that group. Oh Obama was also a member of the same board.

Seriously, can you come up with better sources than known partisan hacks... You may as well have sources DailyKos or MoveOn.org. :roll: