Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers?

Why are there far more Republican global warming nay-sayers? (Page 3)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2010, 07:50 PM
 
It takes his whole "stating opinion as fact" to a whole new level of pseudo truthy gut feeling!
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
You seem to be saying that because someone else collected the information, and because that someone was a scientist, then the information is "questionable."
I think what he is saying is that you are taking someone's word for what the raw data shows, and making an argument based on that. We know that a lot of the raw data in regards to key findings have been destroyed or hidden for some reason. It can't be verified.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
I think the more appropriate question would be;
- Why do Republicans represent a much more diverse view on Global climate than Democrats?

In threads like these you'll find many more "Republicans" or "Conservatives" arguing for AGW than you'll find Democrats arguing against it. Why is that? Democrats apparently gobble up any new, fashionable supposition spoon-fed them by their ilk while Republicans are able to view all the available data and come to their own independent conclusions, regardless of partisan leaning. Again, Republicans will base their conclusions on their interpretation of the evidence while Democrats will oppose whatever it is the Daily Show claims is the Republican view as long as it means massive movements or a cause to assuage the boredom of intellectual juvenility.

No one is "nay-saying" global warming anyway. They are "yea-saying" global climate change that includes warming and cooling driven historically by natural forces both terrestrial and celestial as evidenced by data that spans hundreds of thousands of years.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think the more appropriate question would be;
- Why do Republicans represent a much more diverse view on Global climate than Democrats?

In threads like these you'll find many more "Republicans" or "Conservatives" arguing for AGW
Who?

Originally Posted by stupendousman
I think what he is saying is that you are taking someone's word for what the raw data shows, and making an argument based on that. We know that a lot of the raw data in regards to key findings have been destroyed or hidden for some reason. It can't be verified.
And you're just taking someone's word for what the raw data shows too. You haven't looked personally at the raw data for climate change either, just like you haven't looked at the raw machine code that runs your computer, and you haven't looked at the raw data that underlies your religion, and you haven't looked at the raw intelligence data supporting our global war on terror. That's not a requirement for credulity.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Who?
ShortcutToMoncton and Chuckit to name two out of the gate. They will both commonly be found arguing against those challenging AGW hype and both are self-professed conservatives.

And you're just taking someone's word for what the raw data shows too.
That wasn't my point of contention. I stated that Republicans/Conservatives views seem to enjoy more diversity overall and offered an explanation. I would fully expect those claiming to be even mildly interested in a given subject to have availed themselves of the related data. I'm merely citing my observation of which political "persuasion" represents a much broader range of views and why that could be.

I also challenged the question of the OP in framing this as "nay-saying" global warming.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
ShortcutToMoncton and Chuckit to name two out of the gate. They will both commonly be found arguing against those challenging AGW hype and both are self-professed conservatives.
Your last post, and the OP, said "republican." Those two, and any others I can think of, have in my experience called themselves more "libertarian" or "independent." Also Shortcut is Canadian, so he can hardly be Republican. I guess that's the answer to your counter-question: you were conflating Republican with conservative, something many conservatives have been quick to point out is not technically true.


That wasn't my point of contention. I stated that Republicans/Conservatives views seem to enjoy more diversity overall and offered an explanation. I would fully expect those claiming to be even mildly interested in a given subject to have availed themselves of the related data.
But not the raw data. Looking at raw data is just not something people do. It's up the the peer-review process to proof-read the translation of raw data into relevant comparisons and figures. After that point, whining about the distinction between raw and analyzed data is just grasping at straws.

I also challenged the question of the OP in framing this as "nay-saying" global warming.
That doesn't wash either. The global warming side claims both happen (natural and artificial). The opposition side claims only one happens. The opposition absolutely is "nay-saying."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Your last post, and the OP, said "republican." Those two, and any others I can think of, have in my experience called themselves more "libertarian" or "independent." Also Shortcut is Canadian, so he can hardly be Republican. I guess that's the answer to your counter-question: you were conflating Republican with conservative, something many conservatives have been quick to point out is not technically true.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Conservatives: want to conserve things the way they were. Conservatives resist change. Change is the antithesis of conservation. I'm not surprised at all that science and conservatives are frequently at odds. Why are you?
You have a consistency problem. Most conservatives identify with the Republican party. You seemed to have been accepting of that premise just a few days ago, what happened?

But not the raw data. Looking at raw data is just not something people do. It's up the the peer-review process to proof-read the translation of raw data into relevant comparisons and figures. After that point, whining about the distinction between raw and analyzed data is just grasping at straws.
You'll recall I didn't say anything about raw data. Raw data is often not available to the layperson and most wouldn't know what to do with it if it were. I said available data.

That doesn't wash either. The global warming side claims both happen (natural and artificial). The opposition side claims only one happens. The opposition absolutely is "nay-saying."
The "global warming side" does not accept the state of climate science as burgeoning, but settled and have taken it upon themselves to celebrate their cause du jour by proselytizing standards the most noteworthy of them cannot live by. They've hijacked the comparatively brief phenomena of warming to mitigate human activities they oppose for reasons well beyond a concern for the globe. It is only a matter of time before a new kind of wealth can be realized for a select few; a most reprehensible marriage of corporate and governmental interests. I think it is an awful lot to expect a governmental body to draft permanent legislation around evolving science. I'm sure ACME SCIENCE has an answer to all things. [/sarcasm] This is no more a conspiracy theory than supposing prominent scientists in this field would email one another about FOIA avoidance and documented attempts to shut down any professional interpretation of data not in lock-step with their own. The problem of course is that there is so much to nay-say. With people this sloppy, it's no wonder.
ebuddy
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I really do think that you guys are literally afraid and/or paranoid of the socialist boogieman, and not just because of climate change.
Don't confuse "do not like" with "fearful of".

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you have any idea how far we are away from being a socialist country?
About -97 years.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How can our free markets be so incredibly awesome and powerful yet so simultaneously fragile?
You haven't got a free market in the US. You've got a government-funded/aided economy, much the same as China has. If you're not doing bailouts you're propping up the dollar with little military trips.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Of course, the very notion that I would question your level of passion/fear/paranoia/consternation probably makes me a socialist, huh?
Yes.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You have a consistency problem. Most conservatives identify with the Republican party. You seemed to have been accepting of that premise just a few days ago, what happened?
There is a large overlap. My generalization targeted the overlap. Your generalization targeted the exceptions.


You'll recall I didn't say anything about raw data.
No but stupendousman did, and that's why I responded to him about it, not you. I'm sorry for combining two replies into one post, if that was confusing.


The problem of course is that there is so much to nay-say. With people this sloppy, it's no wonder.
Nay-say all you want; constructive criticism is a good thing, so long as it is constructive, and accurate. I just wanted to correct you when you claimed that's not what you were doing.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There is a large overlap. My generalization targeted the overlap. Your generalization targeted the exceptions.
The OP used the premise of "Republican" and you responded with "Conservative". I started off stating "Conservatives or Republicans" in my OP. In fact, ShortcutToMoncton was the first one to come to mind when I first made the argument. He's generally pretty quick to silence people who accuse him of being a leftist shill with the fact that he's conservative. What was my OP referencing if not the overlap and how was it any different than the premise of your earlier post anyway?

No but stupendousman did, and that's why I responded to him about it, not you. I'm sorry for combining two replies into one post, if that was confusing.
I did assume there was more to combining our responses than expediency and was taking issue with the fact that you seized on stupendousman's use of the word raw in summarizing my take. Sorry if it seemed combative, but I wanted to make sure my point didn't get lost.

Nay-say all you want; constructive criticism is a good thing, so long as it is constructive, and accurate. I just wanted to correct you when you claimed that's not what you were doing.
I admit to being a little smarmy in the initial point, but the logic I used and the conclusions stemming from it were no less substantiated, constructive, or accurate than the bulk of the original responses in this thread. Including yours.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
he's generally pretty quick to silence people who accuse him of being a leftist shill with the fact that he's conservative
how dare you
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The OP used the premise of "Republican" and you responded with "Conservative". I started off stating "Conservatives or Republicans" in my OP. In fact, ShortcutToMoncton was the first one to come to mind when I first made the argument. He's generally pretty quick to silence people who accuse him of being a leftist shill with the fact that he's conservative. What was my OP referencing if not the overlap and how was it any different than the premise of your earlier post anyway?
I don't know whether the OP thinks there's no difference or if he just got lucky, but IMO your answer was wrong.
As for why you were wrong, analogy time; let's just say the OP asks "why do so many Windows machines crash?" and I answered "most computers crash sometime," and then you counter "many Windows machines or computers don't crash, mine never crash." Now being skeptical, I ask you "really which ones are those?" and you say "both my macs never ever crash." Now even if it's true that macs never crash ( ), and even if it's true that there is a large overlap between the groups "windows machines" and "computers," the fact that you cherry-picked from the subset of the group "computers" to get the few that actually aren't in the group the OP named, makes your comment irrelevant to the OP, even if it happens to be true in its own right (and BTW, I'm not the only liberal that has argued against AGW in the past, depending on how far out in left field the discussion got to, so your claim might not be true in its own right. Just sayin').


I did assume there was more to combining our responses than expediency
Ok. In this case there wasn't.


I admit to being a little smarmy in the initial point, but the logic I used and the conclusions stemming from it were no less substantiated, constructive, or accurate than the bulk of the original responses in this thread. Including yours.
Really? You don't don't think the premise that nay-saying AGW is an established Republican policy?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2010, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know whether the OP thinks there's no difference or if he just got lucky, but IMO your answer was wrong.
As for why you were wrong, analogy time; let's just say the OP asks "why do so many Windows machines crash?" and I answered "most computers crash sometime," and then you counter "many Windows machines or computers don't crash, mine never crash." Now being skeptical, I ask you "really which ones are those?" and you say "both my macs never ever crash." Now even if it's true that macs never crash ( ), and even if it's true that there is a large overlap between the groups "windows machines" and "computers," the fact that you cherry-picked from the subset of the group "computers" to get the few that actually aren't in the group the OP named, makes your comment irrelevant to the OP, even if it happens to be true in its own right (and BTW, I'm not the only liberal that has argued against AGW in the past, depending on how far out in left field the discussion got to, so your claim might not be true in its own right. Just sayin').
You're a trip man. I understood you better without the analogy. What I'm trying to tell you is that Republicans/Conservatives in context could assume the overlap or parsed into two groups, it doesn't matter. Some of the most prominent of Republicans are on board the warming wagon. I thought using conservatives in context was as fair as what could be assumed was referenced in the OP if not US-centric. What I'm telling you is that I didn't do anything you hadn't already.

Really? You don't don't think the premise that nay-saying AGW is an established Republican policy?
No. I think skepticism is the majority of society quite frankly, it is bound to be represented somewhere. Analogy time; even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
ebuddy
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
"The information he has presented is also questionable"?

You seem to be saying that because someone else collected the information, and because that someone was a scientist, then the information is "questionable."

greg
Well then perhaps you don't think as clearly as you claim.

FACT - The data is questionable. SOME data has already been compromised. Their are new admissions every day as to the sloppiness of those involved. The kids paper used as a reference of the Mountains glaicers which were never measured, but only far off visual observations. The Chinese weather stations locations are now in dispute. What country is reported to be mostly under sea level? You would think that reputable scientists would say something. Some have tried to. I don't trust the data/processes/conclusions when the sloppiness is so well documented, and the frauds are beginning to admit it.

if you still think the conclusions are the same regardless of the quality of the supporting data then you're not practicing science.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 10:48 AM
 
The data is questionable if it challenges pre-existing beliefs.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
The data is questionable if it challenges pre-existing beliefs.
The data can also be questionable if it is found to be questionable. In other words, just because someone with a presupposition claims the data is manipulated and is later affirmed in his suspicion does not make the documented manipulation of data any less reprehensible.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The data can also be questionable if it is found to be questionable. In other words, just because someone with a presupposition claims the data is manipulated and is later affirmed in his suspicion does not make the documented manipulation of data any less reprehensible.
Of course, but that just makes the original claim of manipulation a lucky guess, at which point that claim was made solely based on belief.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Of course, but that just makes the original claim of manipulation a lucky guess, at which point that claim was made solely based on belief.
This is sticking to an antiquated line of reasoning that might have worked prior to a contrary revelation. This actually affirms BadKosh's argument that your conclusions are not founded on what we know, but what you're presupposing in spite of data to the contrary.

BadKosh is making a statement based on what we now know and you're sticking to an argument that pretends we don't.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
BadKosh is making a statement based on what we now know and you're sticking to an argument that pretends we don't.
I'm neither arguing for or against global warming here. I'm only saying that, prior to proof of data manipulation, any claims of data manipulation were merely lucky guesses based on belief.

Did the person who got the right lottery number know the correct number before hand, or did they just make a lucky guess?
Was the paranoid conspiracy theorist completely sane when *one* of his theories was somewhat correct?

This is not to say that those opposed to global warming theories shouldn't have been critical of them. There was no conclusive evidence either way. Even with the data manipulation, there *still* isn't *conclusive* evidence either way.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm neither arguing for or against global warming here. I'm only saying that, prior to proof of data manipulation, any claims of data manipulation were merely lucky guesses based on belief.
Right, but it seemed to me you were responding to BadKosh using an argument that ignores what we now know. Whether or not BadKosh thought this before is irrelevant and not referenced in your response.

Did the person who got the right lottery number know the correct number before hand, or did they just make a lucky guess?
Was the paranoid conspiracy theorist completely sane when *one* of his theories was somewhat correct?
Did a dealer witness the "winner" and the head of gaming making out at a concert just days before and did he already report evidence of prior problems with this head of gaming in the past? Did he make his complaints of impropriety known before the proof of cheating was made public? Using your logic, there is no good reason to challenge anything and worse; your analogy maintains a stance that pretends the impropriety wasn't made public.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
FACT - The data is questionable. SOME data has already been compromised.
This is completely illogical. Just because some data has been compromised, doesn't mean all data has been compromised.

This is especially so in a scientific discipline that spans the entire globe and a range of scientific disciplines. How is there possibly a link between questionable information on Himalayan glaciers and the information we have on glaciers in the Rockies?


The kids paper used as a reference of the Mountains glaicers which were never measured, but only far off visual observations. The Chinese weather stations locations are now in dispute. What country is reported to be mostly under sea level?
You'll need to give some concrete examples here - I'm not 100% sure of the issues you're talking about - but again: you'll never find a scientist who claims the data is perfect. When problems are identified, those problems are addressed. By definition, the data cannot continue to get better without weaknesses being exposed.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2010, 09:48 PM
 
When problems are identified they fixed the data.

Do you think all the frauds involved have been identified?
Has ALL the fudging been identified and the BS removed?
You sure have low levels acceptability.

The frauds and the data they tampered with or supplied should be omitted. The processes need closer scrutiny and more respectability.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 03:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And you're just taking someone's word for what the raw data shows too.
Actually, I'm not. I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. Not the pro-man made global warming proponents or those on the other side. What I do know is that one side has either destroyed, hidden or tried to hide the raw data and when some of it actually gets to be examined, it would seem to be "cherry-picked."

That doesn't bode well for the other side, but that doesn't mean that there might be some data out there somewhere that might prove their theories.

You haven't looked personally at the raw data for climate change either...
That's kind of hard when a lot of it has either been destroyed, or is being actively hidden illegally so people can't personally look at it.

... just like you haven't looked at the raw machine code that runs your computer...
If my computer was making predictions about the future in ways that would cause me to have to go through a major lifestyle change, you better believe I'd make sure that the programming running my computer was sound before I acted.

...and you haven't looked at the raw data that underlies your religion, and you haven't looked at the raw intelligence data supporting our global war on terror. That's not a requirement for credulity.
I look at the "raw data" when I can of anything which is a concern to me which might cause me a decrease in my quality of life. That seems like "due dilengence." I don't just take someone's word for things. When the credibility of the claims regarding those things is called into doubt, and I find that the evidence needed to decide whether or not the data in question is trustworthy or not, if I find out that the data has been destroyed and/or is being actively hid, that sends up HUGE RED FLAGS to proceed with caution.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Actually, I'm not. I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. Not the pro-man made global warming proponents or those on the other side. What I do know is that one side has either destroyed, hidden or tried to hide the raw data and when some of it actually gets to be examined, it would seem to be "cherry-picked."
"It would seem"? Tell me, who determined whether it "seems" to be "cherry-picked?" Was it you, personally, or was it "others?" Now you're just taking others' word for what the data "seems to be"!

I look at the "raw data" when I can of anything which is a concern to me which might cause me a decrease in my quality of life. That seems like "due dilengence."
Like what? Name one of those things that you have actually seen the raw data from.

I don't just take someone's word for things. When the credibility of the claims regarding those things is called into doubt, and I find that the evidence needed to decide whether or not the data in question is trustworthy or not, if I find out that the data has been destroyed and/or is being actively hid, that sends up HUGE RED FLAGS to proceed with caution.
I suppose that's why you didn't start crying wolf on this topic before those flags went up
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Actually, I'm not. I'm not taking anyone's word for anything. Not the pro-man made global warming proponents or those on the other side. What I do know is that one side has either destroyed, hidden or tried to hide the raw data and when some of it actually gets to be examined, it would seem to be "cherry-picked."
I'm 100% confident that anti-global-warming proponents are more culpable for hiding, misleading, lying, or cherry-picking data. That's just a fact.

But that didn't stop you before, did it?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 02:25 PM
 
So it's not up to those that believe the world is in imminent danger to prove it, but for everyone else to prove that it isn't. oooooooookay.

Most people don't actually go around trying to damage the environment, and are in favor of punishing those who actually do. So how convenient is it that the MMGW crowd seeks to tell people who are otherwise just living their lives "Hey, even if you don't think you are, you are responsible for destroing the world, so you must let us turn over a huge chunk of power (AS USUAL!) to a bunch of politicians in order to saaaaaaaave the planet. Oh yes, and if you don't believe the planet needs to be rescued, prove it, otherwise just roll over for our political objectives."

And people wonder why everyone else doesn't just fall hook, line and sinker for that.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
"It would seem"? Tell me, who determined whether it "seems" to be "cherry-picked?" Was it you, personally, or was it "others?" Now you're just taking others' word for what the data "seems to be"!
I don't see anyone refuting that the data has been destroyed, or that they didn't illegally try to hide it. On the other hand, I have seen people refuting that there is solid evidence of an eminent man-made global warming catastrophe. The burden of proof really is on the people who claim MMGW. It's those people who are suggesting that they've found new "truth."

If you have evidence that they really do have the data somewhere, and that they've been trying to give it to those who are skeptics, I'd be glad to hear the news though.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I'm 100% confident that anti-global-warming proponents are more culpable for hiding, misleading, lying, or cherry-picking data. That's just a fact.
But you're just a poopy head! That's just a "fact" too.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The burden of proof really is on the people who claim MMGW. It's those people who are suggesting that they've found new "truth."
That much is true, I agree. But your insistence on the raw data as opposed to analyzed or adjusted data, after a decade no less, is an over-reaction. You don't think twice about the absence of raw data in anything else in your life. Even in science, it is unheard of to present or demand raw data (after peer-review is over). All scientific data is presented as analyzed, compensated, averaged, adjusted, or transformed. It's just more useful and understandable that way. And if you suspect intentional misconduct, raw data is no harder to fake than adjusted data, so there really is no purpose in demanding to see it.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2010, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
But you're just a poopy head! That's just a "fact" too.
...exactly
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That much is true, I agree. But your insistence on the raw data as opposed to analyzed or adjusted data, after a decade no less, is an over-reaction.
I don't insist just to insist. There have been credible claims that the the raw data in question has been manipulated dishonestly. It's not an over-reaction for people to show surprise when the request to verify the "adjusted data" is met with insistences that actual, original data has been destroyed or that they simply illegally refuse to let people check their work.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 11:45 AM
 
Yes, it is an over-reaction, and it's not illegal. You're just crying wolf the same as you've always been.

I'm still waiting for you to name even one thing you've ever checked the raw data from before.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 01:00 PM
 
Check the raw data on plate tectonics, I feel like plate subjugation has been exaggerated by the scientific community. Lousy untrustworthy scientists.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, it is an over-reaction, and it's not illegal.
I'm pretty sure the guys in the UK where given a FOI request and didn't comply. I don't think it's legal to refuse to comply with one of these requests, is it?

I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones - Times Online

I'm still waiting for you to name even one thing you've ever checked the raw data from before.
I check raw data every day.

I'm given reports which are compilations of raw data and often times have to go back and check to make sure everything was done properly when the reports don't seem to match up how previous projections have went.

If I went back and asked to see the actual numbers that made up the report and someone told me that they'd destroyed them, or simply refused to produce them they'd be fired.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 01:45 PM
 
That's not an answer to the question he was asking and you know it.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
That's not an answer to the question he was asking and you know it.
No, I don't.

He asked if I've checked raw data. I do it daily. If you compile raw data as part of an analysis or report, you have to keep the data so that you can go back to check it if you find that there are problems with your numbers. One thing you don't do is destroy it or refuse to let it be seen if a third party questions whether or not you got something wrong.

I'm not sure what else he means, unless he wants me to find something else that someone else provided analysis for, and I went back and looked at the "raw data".

In that case, I often times don't take polling at face value. I often times will try to see all the raw data I can (who was polled, how many, number of responses, etc), or at the very least get the exact methods use to achieve the results so I can determine if there are flaws in the methods used or errors in how the data was interpreted.

I get what he was trying to do though - but he's really not being very successful. People often times want all the information they can get when presented with claims that doesn't seem to make sense, or makes sense only in that the person presenting the claims has a self interest in having their claims be true.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I often times will try to see all the raw data I can (who was polled, how many, number of responses, etc)
Which, strictly speaking, is not "raw data."

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2010, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I look at the "raw data" when I can of anything which is a concern to me which might cause me a decrease in my quality of life.
Like what? Name one of those things that you have actually seen the raw data from, because it "might cause you a decrease in your quality of life." Looking at the data because it's your job to do it has nothing to do with "causing you a decrease in your quality of life." Tell me something that you are not a party to, that you went and looked at the raw data from. For example, the "global war on terror" has decreased the quality of life of any frequent traveler, so if you are a frequent traveler you might tell me that you accessed the raw data supporting the "global war on terror" to see if it was a valid pursuit.

I'm not asking for your qualifications to look at raw data (like can you do it because it's part of your job), I'm asking for an example to clarify your claim that it's important, or routine, to look at the raw data in someone else's expertise (not your own). Jut give one example of where that has happened, in your life.

People often times want all the information they can get when presented with claims that doesn't seem to make sense, or makes sense only in that the person presenting the claims has a self interest in having their claims be true.
Exactly. I want more information because I have been presented with a claim that doesn't seem to make sense (yours), and you have a self interest in the claim being true. Now just answer the question please.

I often times don't take polling at face value. I often times will try to see all the raw data I can (who was polled, how many, number of responses, etc), or at the very least get the exact methods use to achieve the results
As said above, this is not raw data. This is methods. Raw data would be, for example, the actual physical ballots filled in by the subjects, or in a phone poll it would be tape recordings of the responses.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Feb 9, 2010 at 06:42 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Which, strictly speaking, is not "raw data."
At what point would it satisfy you? If I went out and asked the people questions myself?

I'm pretty sure that the point was whether or not it was ever necessary to go back and check the actual methods, means and data used to come to a conclusion about something. This isn't something that's all that unusual really and I've shown that as part of my every day routine I've had to do this.

The argument seems to be that since I don't go back and look through the machine code my computer chip uses, that I should trust a computer that acts weird and doesn't seem to work as it should....or something.

I'm not really sure because the whole argument doesn't really make sense. If there's information I'm responsible for, I showed how I've made sure it was possible to check the raw data to look for mistakes or errors in analysis or allow someone else to do so. If there's information others are responsible for, it would seem reasonable for them to do the same so someone else can check their work. I'm pretty sure that if people seem to believe that the chip in question is acting faulty, that there's a way to go back and have someone check the code in question. I don't think it requires ME PERSONALLY to do so, and never suggested it did.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm not asking for your qualifications to look at raw data (like can you do it because it's part of your job), I'm asking for an example to clarify your claim that it's important, or routine, to look at the raw data in someone else's expertise (not your own). Jut give one example of where that has happened, in your life.
I've given examples of how I've checked underlying information to see if an analysis seemed correct. I never however stated that I need "to look at the raw data in someone else's expertise" in the manner you are suggesting, concerning EVERYTHING.

I never asked to see the data that has been destroyed or hidden. I was pointing out that people WHO DID want this information should be able to get access to it in order to check the work of those involved - especially in findings that are controversial.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I've made sure it was possible to check the raw data to look for mistakes or errors in analysis or allow someone else to do so. If there's information others are responsible for, it would seem reasonable for them to do the same so someone else can check their work. I'm pretty sure that if people seem to believe that the chip in question is acting faulty, that there's a way to go back and have someone check the code in question. I don't think it requires ME PERSONALLY to do so, and never suggested it did.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I never asked to see the data that has been destroyed or hidden. I was pointing out that [other] people WHO DID want this information should be able to get access to it
Great! So you admit that you're taking someone's word for it too. This is where I came in. Thank you for giving up on that ridiculous position.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
At what point would it satisfy you?
What Uncle Skeleton said.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Great! So you admit that you're taking someone's word for it too.
Yes, I'm taking the word of the people who requested the information, and the people who reported that the data was destroyed or attempted to be hidden. Unless there's information that would seem to point otherwise, I don't see a more rational stand.

Are you saying that the data wasn't destroyed, and that they didn't make any attempts to illegally be in non-compliance with freedom of information laws?

I'm not sure how taking someone's word for something that isn't being refuted is the same as taking someone's word for something that's controversial which would seem to be politically (or financially) motivated in nature. I'm pretty sure it isn't, and you're really grasping her for an argument.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 04:07 PM
 
Climate change denial and smearing climatologists couldn't possibly be politically motivated?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 08:57 PM
 
I laugh every time I hear "climate change" rather than the old 'global warming' claim.

Gee, what a way to set yourself up so you can't possibly be wrong, and such an obvious backpedal to the specific claim of 'global warming'.

"Before we were full of it, but now we're absolutely certain that the climate is going to.... CHANGE!"

Gee whiz, no one can possibly deny that! No more tossing the coin claiming coming ice ages or global warming, just cover all possible outcomes and that you're sounding the alarm on it.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 09:13 PM
 
Do ice caps melt when it gets colder or stays the same temperature?

Just checking...
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I laugh every time I hear "climate change" rather than the old 'global warming' claim.

Gee, what a way to set yourself up so you can't possibly be wrong, and such an obvious backpedal to the specific claim of 'global warming'.

"Before we were full of it, but now we're absolutely certain that the climate is going to.... CHANGE!"

Gee whiz, no one can possibly deny that! No more tossing the coin claiming coming ice ages or global warming, just cover all possible outcomes and that you're sounding the alarm on it.
Actually, if the current theories are correct, then "climate change" is accurate since temperature increases in one area would result in temperature decreases in other areas.

The fact that they're modifying their theories to reflect current understandings actually makes me feel better about those theories. It tells me that they can admit error when shown evidence that invalidates their original theory.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2010, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Actually, if the current theories are correct, then "climate change" is accurate since temperature increases in one area would result in temperature decreases in other areas.

The fact that they're modifying their theories to reflect current understandings actually makes me feel better about those theories. It tells me that they can admit error when shown evidence that invalidates their original theory.
IMO, statements like this are just caricatures of science. This discipline does not render one somehow above the human conditions of impropriety, corruption, croneyism, and greed.

Of course "climate change" is accurate. I know of absolutely no one arguing against climate change.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Climate change denial and smearing climatologists couldn't possibly be politically motivated?
No one I know is denying climate change.

But, doing that to people forwarding unproven claims about an imminent man-made global warming catastrophe could be politically motivated - I agree.

The problem is that the criticism in question is based on evidence. Evidence that those making the claims haven't been, and still aren't being honest. When you do that sort of thing, you open yourself up to have your credibility hurt by those it benefits politically.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2010, 11:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Evidence that those making the claims haven't been, and still aren't being honest. When you do that sort of thing, you open yourself up to have your credibility hurt by those it benefits politically.
But this indictment applies ten times over to you and most climate skeptics. The difference is that most climate scientists still have scientific evidence supporting them, and you still don't.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,