[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Ciberblade

That is true -- but by your posts, the funding of the research would throw such controls into question. So which is it?

I would have to see the study. Can't tell much of anything by funding alone.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

BTW a friend's (and former prof of mine) daughter has been doing research on climate change for the last year at UW Madison, and has a job this summer working for the Gov. in CO. doing mathematical modelling for them.

So?

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

I would have to see the study. Can't tell much of anything by funding alone.

Then why did you make post #840?

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ml#post4175407

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gibble

Then why did you make post #840?

http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-...ml#post4175407

Here is what I said:

Any "Science" paid for by a political group is questionable!

And I stand by it. I mean (by it) don't believe it unquestioningly!

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Here is what I said:



And I stand by it. I mean (by it) don't believe it unquestioningly!

But all science is questionable, that's the entire premise of peer review, that's why science is a self correcting method...where the science comes from doesn't matter.

So again...why would you make that post to try and rebuke the science based upon it's source, rather than it's scientific merit?

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by bassetman

And I stand by it. I mean (by it) don't believe it unquestioningly!

Nobody had asserted that -- though, that IS what a scientific review is for -- because most people don't have the time to even read the whole research with all of it's sub sects -- or an understanding of it, if they did.

[bill.aam]

First in 75 years, so does that mean, that 75 years ago (before all the green houses gasses) they saw icebergs off the shores of New Zealand..

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - An iceberg has been spotted from the New Zealand shore for the first time in 75 years, one of about 100 that have been drifting south of the country.


The giant ice chunk was visible Thursday from Dunedin on South Island but has since moved away, driven by winds and ocean currents. The flotilla of icebergs — some as big as houses — were first spotted south of New Zealand early this month.

Last year, icebergs were seen in the country's waters for the first time in 56 years. But the last time one was visible from the New Zealand shore was June 1931, said Mike Williams, an oceanographer at the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research.

Scientists have been reluctant to blame global warming.

"We've been monitoring these things for such a short time, it's impossible to see. To say this is unusual and related to global warming is just not possible," Paul Augustinus, an Auckland University glacial geomorphology lecturer, told the New Zealand Herald earlier this month.

"It's a fairly frequent occurrence; it's just unusual for such large bergs to get so far north," he added.

[redivivus]

How about Global Cooling? hint

I personally do agree with the Global Warming though.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Psychology and Sociology!

Liberal arts?

[valis]

Any "Science" paid for by a political group is questionable!

I think the only thing that would be questionable would be the motivation behind the funding, NOT the science itself. That, and what spin is put on the results. The science won't lie. The political group, on the other hand.........

[Chicon]

Unexpected effect of the global warming !

[Fidelista]

>f

Intentional pollution might cut global warming
Top scientists say humans might need to seed skies with pollution to cool the planet

NAIROBI, Kenya -- If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade.


The "shade" would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. The reaction to this over-the-top idea here at the United Nations conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...611170430/1012

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Gibble

But all science is questionable, that's the entire premise of peer review, that's why science is a self correcting method...where the science comes from doesn't matter.

So again...why would you make that post to try and rebuke the science based upon it's source, rather than it's scientific merit?

Was that study published in a recognized peer revied journal?

Nobody had asserted that -- though, that IS what a scientific review is for -- because most people don't have the time to even read the whole research with all of it's sub sects -- or an understanding of it, if they did.

I understand that.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by valis

I think the only thing that would be questionable would be the motivation behind the funding, NOT the science itself. That, and what spin is put on the results. The science won't lie. The political group, on the other hand.........

Ralph Nader did a study on the VW Bug (like he did on the Corvair). He compared it's safety in a crash to that of a Cadillac. The results were technically correct, but his design was flawed.

VW didn't sue like GM and and the sales were unaffected.

[valis]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Ralph Nader did a study on the VW Bug (like he did on the Corvair). He compared it's safety in a crash to that of a Cadillac. The results were technically correct, but his design was flawed.

VW did sue like GM and and the sales were unaffected.

That's not science, though. That's a study that was flawed from the outset. I could do a study on length neck of a giraffe versus a hippo and get favorable results, no matter who funded it.

Simple physics denotes that the caddy should (*should*) be safer in a head-on collision, especially as the beetle's front end was largely empty space, where the caddy's was a big ol' hunk of DEEEEtroit eye-ron.