Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Northeast Stinger" data-source="post: 321123" data-attributes="member: 1640"><p>I actually kind of agree with you. I have heard climate change skeptics (a rare few to be sure) say that reducing carbon emissions might be a good idea to do anyway even if it has no effect on global temperatures. </p><p></p><p>The article is about the fact that those who are doing pure research often have their findings taken out of context and distorted to support a particular political position. In the case of the Daily Caller article, for instance, global temperatures since 1980 were adjusted (the reasons which were in the original report make sense to a layman like myself and do not reflect any sinister motives) but this was distorted by the later paper. The adjustments, since 1980, were equal 50% were adjusted upward and 50% were adjusted downward. But in the later paper, which the Daily Caller builds its case on, these numbers get changed. Why? I don't know but all the people who worked on the paper are funded by carbon industries. That does not make them immoral or even wrong but it does raise issues of objectivity when their "peer review" was also done by other scientists who were working for carbon industries. Not to be argumentative, but it appeared to me that they started with their conclusion and then doctored the data. </p><p></p><p>Following the science rather than scientists is a good idea. I vote for that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Northeast Stinger, post: 321123, member: 1640"] I actually kind of agree with you. I have heard climate change skeptics (a rare few to be sure) say that reducing carbon emissions might be a good idea to do anyway even if it has no effect on global temperatures. The article is about the fact that those who are doing pure research often have their findings taken out of context and distorted to support a particular political position. In the case of the Daily Caller article, for instance, global temperatures since 1980 were adjusted (the reasons which were in the original report make sense to a layman like myself and do not reflect any sinister motives) but this was distorted by the later paper. The adjustments, since 1980, were equal 50% were adjusted upward and 50% were adjusted downward. But in the later paper, which the Daily Caller builds its case on, these numbers get changed. Why? I don't know but all the people who worked on the paper are funded by carbon industries. That does not make them immoral or even wrong but it does raise issues of objectivity when their "peer review" was also done by other scientists who were working for carbon industries. Not to be argumentative, but it appeared to me that they started with their conclusion and then doctored the data. Following the science rather than scientists is a good idea. I vote for that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
2015 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top