Earth in the Balance? Nope.
in [Toyota]
|
From: Tegger on 13 Dec 2009 09:01 "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:AwVUm.61778$Wd1.10832 @newsfe15.iad: > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails Another nice little whitewash. It excuses all sorts of--what in any other field of science--would be considered inexcusable behavior. If you (and AP) knew anything at all about scientific research, you (and AP) would realize that release of raw data and of modeling code is EXPECTED. That's how you confirm your own results: By having others perform the same tests, and come up with the same result. A defining characteristic of sound scientific method is REPEATABILITY. When others express an interest in confirming your results (thereby helping to validate your theory), you're expected to release all your data to them. That Mike Mann and the CRU people REFUSED to release the requested information, even after a large number of repeated requests, is deeply suspicious and deeply, deeply wrong. AP should be ashamed of itself in attempting to smother this matter. Consider this: Suppose the CRU had actually been a private pharmaceutical company that was trying to convince the public and regulators that its new drug was safe. Suppose that this pharmaceutical company refused to release raw data, fudged the data they did have, guessed at the data they didn't have, conspired to destroy evidence, and demanded that you take them on faith and stop bugging them for information. How long do you think it would be before the media and government stomped all over them until they were flat as chewing-gum wrappers? -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 13 Dec 2009 09:04 "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in news:qGXUm.61782$Wd1.53139(a)newsfe15.iad: > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.12.23.31.59.710926(a)e86.GTS... >> >> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored >> private doubts, >> > If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd > be as smug and useless as the deniers are. If anybody's "smug", it's the warming believers. They somehow believe that their science should be different from everybody else's. You don't know much about scientific method, do you? If you did, you'd realize that what Mike Mann and the CRU people have done (and not done) was inexcusable. -- Tegger
From: Ron Chapman on 13 Dec 2009 10:31 In article <Xns9CE05C3A66DB7tegger(a)208.90.168.18>, Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote: > "tak" <jkirch(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in > news:qGXUm.61782$Wd1.53139(a)newsfe15.iad: > > > > > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > > news:pan.2009.12.12.23.31.59.710926(a)e86.GTS... > > >> > >> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored > >> private doubts, > >> > > If they didn't harbor doubts, and try to match theory to data, they'd > > be as smug and useless as the deniers are. > > > > If anybody's "smug", it's the warming believers. > > They somehow believe that their science should be different from everybody > else's. > > You don't know much about scientific method, do you? If you did, you'd > realize that what Mike Mann and the CRU people have done (and not done) was > inexcusable. http://forums.dealmac.com/read.php?7,2861471 Self-explanatory.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 11:02 On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:02:46 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:41:29 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > >>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:02:15 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:48:58 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Even the Climate Change crowd doesn't believe that. >>>> >>>>How do we know? >>>> >>>>Because if the Believers were truly convinced that there actually was a >>>>serious risk of imminent death and destruction from man-made Climate >>>>Change, they'd be very willing to listen to all arguments, whatever the >>>>source. >>>> >>>>They'd readily release all their raw data, all their statistical >>>>methodology, and all their computer modeling code. >>>> >>>>They'd carefully consider all the evidence presented by the skeptics, >>>>and would work eagerly with those who had differing opinions. >>>> >>>>Since the consequence of being wrong would be fatal, they would do all >>>>this because they would be terribly afraid they might be wrong. >>>> >>>>The fact that they have not -- and won't -- do any of those things, can >>>>only have one meaning: That there is no risk to the earth, or the life >>>>upon it, from Climate Change. >>> >>> Plus, they are not all moving to Denver or towns higher in >>> altitude..... >> >>When does the exodus from FLA begin? >> >> > My house is on the water and I ain't movin.... What will you do when Florida is under 100 feet of water? Going to happen any minute now, you know.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Dec 2009 11:06
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:01:04 +0000, Tegger wrote: > Suppose the CRU had actually been a private pharmaceutical company that > was trying to convince the public and regulators that its new drug was > safe. > > Suppose that this pharmaceutical company refused to release raw data, > fudged the data they did have, guessed at the data they didn't have, > conspired to destroy evidence, and demanded that you take them on faith > and stop bugging them for information. They'd all be up in arms for sure. But, that's different. They don't have an actual Politician as a cheerleader, and pharamceutical companies get they're money by actually selling a product, and not from handouts from governments. The people want to hear the sky is burning, so they feed the flams and the money rolls in. |