View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012 Posts: 1120
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The global warming alarmist mantra is that any studies that show a different conclusion are paid for by the oil industry, evil Republicans the Kotch brothers or whomever and are thus biased and not to be trusted.
The problem with this idea is that the reverse is true also. Global warming or climate change or whatever you guys will call it next has become quite an industry with lots of money to be made from it. There is the whole green industry, carbon credits, very profitable non-profits, media, on and on then there is the "science" industry. Scientists and their studies are paid very well from government grants, Universities, the green industry, charities etc.. the scientists and those paying them are desiring a certain conclusion from the studies. For instance do you think the oboma administration, George Soros, Sierra Club et al wants to pay for studies that show climate change is not man made? Can you imagine the reaction from a group of environmentalist, leftist students at a University conducting a study that results in an outcome opposite to what they had assumed? These students are planning their whole careers around being activists against climate change. Competition for that professorship is cut throat. Every year six new PHD's for every University position. The necessity for the studies to reach a certain conclusion is dangerous problem, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. Publish or perish is a necessity.
Studies and data can be skewered in many ways, from deciding what the study will be about all the way to a subtle and unintentional bias for instance the bandwagon effect, observer-expectancy effect, this is why they have double blind studies for behavior research so the tester does not impart an unintentional bias.
Desired conclusions can be reached in many ways for instance if the signal being measured is actually smaller than the rounding error and the data are over-averaged, a positive result for the measurement can be found in the data where none exists. Etc etc... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I scare myself.
Koch is the word you were searching for. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
BB, An entirely reasonable and thoughtful post. The dismissive response highlights the problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps you were also looking for the word "skewed", as in slanted? One's attention to detail continues to be important to how one is perceived, much less whether one is "reasonable", in the real world.
Don't consider yourself "skewered". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012 Posts: 1120
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not one of your students little professor, wow you must be so clever because you have a better spell checker.
Without a doubt mac is the most condescending serial poster here, can you imagine being one of his students? I'm sure down in our repressed memory we can all recall a teacher like this.
Any misspelled words here? and what does it have to do with anything? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012 Posts: 1120
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And furthermore that is his response to my challenge that global warming data is biased.
So originally we were alleged to be entering a new ice age, when that didn't happen they said it was going to get too hot, when that didn't happen they said the heat was causing it to get cold and changed the name to "climate change" so as to cover all the possible outcomes.
My question is what happens if the climate doesn't change? What will you call that? Will you say that the climate isn't changing because of the global warming? and the climate not changing is bad also? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have you looked at the temperature graph? Or is your head too far in the sand? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
beaglebuddy wrote: | [pointing out spelling errors] is [mac's] response to my challenge that global warming data is biased. ... what does it have to do with anything? |
Everything, because it's all he has or he wouldn't have led with it. You didn't mention a color, a nation, a race, a human physical characteristic, a human behavior, a border, a hair style, any individual person of ANY shade, a career, a cuisine, or any other factor attributable to any ethnicity, so he COULDN'T call you a racist with a straight face. Thus he used the other mac-ism for "I got nuthin'". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P.S. When you try to show people that you really know what is going on with a subject like global warming, and you don't care about the credibility of your sources, you probably shouldn't try to use words that you can't spell and end up misusing. It makes you look foolish in your ah hah moment.
Skewed information is like accepting lies paid for by the Koch's, as they fund firms that hire the people that helped the tobacco companies lie about their health risks. That would be Fred Singer. But a coherent argument, based on facts, is not your forte.
Consider yourself skewered. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So BB
Please explain why research done and paid by gov. during the Bush years also supports the data on rising temps.
You have been fooled by listening to Talk again.
When someone cuts and pastes an explanation of the limits of data collection, it is always the data that disagrees with their position.
You forgot to say
" All the data gathered by folks who agree with me is also highly suspect"
Or try this conclusion.
" All science is biased in every field so no one should believe science at all.
That is why it has done nothing for us and we live like cavemen"
Instead you chose to conclude that your data are right and the other guy is always wrong. Gybe finds such thinking to be clever and insightful.
Last edited by keycocker on Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|