06-16-2005, 02:06 AM | #51 | |||
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Fresno, CA
|
Quote:
Well pollution is bad...I think that is something we can agree on. Then we have the bit about the US taking the biggest steps to prevent pollution. I think that is a reasonable position. Then we come to our differences...The United States forces its polluting businesses to dramatically reduce their emissions without regard to costs. That really doesn't have a good result, because it will damage the economy and probably drive polluting businesses out of the country to poorer countries without the benefit of the tougher restrictions. There really are reasons that Congress back when Clinton was in office the Senate voted something like 95-2 on the Kyoto Treaty Provisions. |
|||
06-16-2005, 07:40 AM | #52 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
keep in mind this gy, the editor is NOT going to work for them as a scientist...he is going to work for them in PR which I think says a llot. That is why Im appalled at his editing the report in the white house. He wasn't editing it so that it was more truthful or accurate, he was editing to place words that foster doubt or minimize. That is wrong.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
06-16-2005, 11:10 AM | #53 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
To me, it comes down to if he changed or modified the data in his final report. "Spinning" a study a certain (using the real data) is not all that big of a deal. Most studies allow readers to make a few different conclusions based on the results at hand - choosing to focus on one of the results (instead of another) is not the same as changing the study or "lying".
And, to this point, I haven't seen anything to show me that the changes made in the report on this study were not supported by the data. |
06-16-2005, 02:19 PM | #54 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Here is Arles apparent view in a nushell: Quote:
|
||
06-16-2005, 02:23 PM | #55 | |||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just because you may question someones motives does not make him guilty when no crime has been committed. You need to find the crime in this before you begin the "tar-and-feather" routine. Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 02:28 PM. |
|||
06-16-2005, 02:37 PM | #56 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Deleting entire paragraphs is not altering the results? Of course he didn't change the numbers, he wasn't involved with creating the numbers because he has no scientific background of any kind. Last edited by MrBigglesworth : 06-16-2005 at 02:37 PM. |
||
06-16-2005, 02:52 PM | #57 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
Arles, POTENTIALLY could be an idiot. The supposed evidence might lead one to surmise that idiocy could be in the works but as of now its inconclusive. In the findings of this report we simply cannot conlude 100% that he is an idiot eventhough there might be evidence that he is. As of now we ask that more studies be done so that this report, in which his idiocy is in serious question, wherein that same idiocy seems to be only 99% conclusive, be viewed as simply a hypothesis. OR how 'bout this since Arles seems ok in that our leadership put leading words out there: "Hello Im Kenneth Lay and this is why you should continue to have 100% of your 401K socked in our own stock!! Im buying it and you should too!! you could potentially make millions, and it is likely." lets bring it closer to home: Mrs. Rahn, this is Mrs. Jones up the street. It seems your duaghter might've been a bad influence on my daughter. Recently I caught my daughter watching pornography in the Living room. Now she said that your daughter left it over here on accident. My daughter also recently starting doing cocaine and it seems that your daughter potentially and probably is over here immediately before and after one of her binges. NOw I cant prove your duaghter is causing this behavior but it seems that one might draw conclusions that the two are certainly spending some coke time together. I undertsand that this could potentially be damaging to your duaghter's reputation but keep in mind this isn't proven yet, as Im still gathering the evidence...I have a lot but I need more to give to you. Please keep in mind that as of now your daughter is free and clear of any of these accusations but I can't help but notice that your daughter acts different when she is over here, she carries large sums of money on her (sometimes pehaps), and the two of them continually rub their noses (eventhough its cold here it seems more than just that potentially.) you see, leading words mixed with scientific study, can totally make it garbage. None of the above is true BUT start throwing word leaders around and you can pretty much get what you want...... Scientists should NOT have their evidence altered edited and Deleted by people who are not qualified to do so. Its dangerous as hell and we shouldnt accept it. AND ITS WRONG!!
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL Last edited by Flasch186 : 06-16-2005 at 02:55 PM. |
|
06-16-2005, 03:22 PM | #58 | |
Red-Headed Vixen
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
Quote:
This would never happen. I'm going to follow the Chinese plan for Rahn population control. All female Spawn of the She-Rahn will be put up for adoption. |
|
06-16-2005, 03:24 PM | #59 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Quote:
Beautiful. SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
06-16-2005, 03:25 PM | #60 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Can I get one? A trip to Arizona would be much better than our current plan to go to China.
|
06-16-2005, 03:29 PM | #61 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
|
||
06-16-2005, 03:34 PM | #62 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
But, in this case, the most aggregious thing the White House did was remove references to a prior study because those references were not a direct result of this study. WOW- Holy smokes - they completely tainted the study!!! (meanwhile, all the data and hard evidence from the study the White House commissioned remains.) |
||
06-16-2005, 03:39 PM | #63 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
dola, all this could be cleared up if the Times would simply release what was actually changed (and that way we can all see) instead of telling us what they think the "intent" of the removed portion was.
|
06-16-2005, 03:42 PM | #64 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Arles, why do you continue in these political debates continue to ask people produce evidence of things that aren't the issue? No one is saying he changed the data. People are saying he changed the conclusions of the data (and you don't seem to have ever looked at a climate change report - it isn't like it is a few paragraphs, followed by spreadsheets - the data is integrated and interpreted in the text). Continuing to say, "but he didn't change the data," is a non-sequitor. Here is the whisteblower statement that outlines the long-standing problems that go beyond Cooney's edits: hxxp://209.200.93.225/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf It's funny. I'm a big believer that the human-to-warming link is only partially understood and often exaggerated, but what the administration is doing on this issue is indefensible whether you believe in global warming or not.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-16-2005, 03:44 PM | #65 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
AND i dont think that that is ok either, see at least im consistent
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 03:44 PM | #66 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
Quote:
thank you
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
|
06-16-2005, 03:45 PM | #67 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
This is just untrue. The allegations go well beyond that.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-16-2005, 03:48 PM | #68 |
Coordinator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
so Arles, you see that using "language" is a powerful thing and it IS wrong to make remarks and make changes that change "tone" or make "inferences" and lead readers to make "conclusions". Perhaps you'll say its not wrong, but Im sure you'll admit it's slimy as hell. You're just more ok with the slimy-ness than me.
__________________
Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL |
06-16-2005, 04:01 PM | #69 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
And let me add another thing beyond John Galt's thoughts which have already eviscerated Arles' arguments: science continually builds upon itself. New studies further old studies. Therefore, any respectable scientific study will talk about old studies and intertwine the results of each, so that together they are used to strengthen each other. Old studies incorporated into new studies are not 'irrelevant', it was probably put there for a reason, and that reason was most likely to show how global warming sucks, which Cooney did not want to further the debate on.
|
06-16-2005, 04:41 PM | #70 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. If I commission someone to do a study on "Subject X" and they come back with data on that issue that is inconclusive. Then, decide to use the data in three other studies to help back up their questionable data and draw a conclusion that is also questionable, I (as the commissioner of the study) reserve the right to bring back the conclusions to data from THIS STUDY ONLY.
Again, I would really like to see the actual changes the BYTimes is basing its opinions on. That way we could see the differences and decide if the changes were really material to the study data or simply conclusions based on other outside studies that the White House wasn't ready to accept as proven fact at this point. Last edited by Arles : 06-16-2005 at 04:42 PM. |
06-16-2005, 04:49 PM | #71 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-16-2005, 04:50 PM | #72 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Hey, that's the same memo I posted.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-16-2005, 05:04 PM | #73 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
If some Harvard or Stanford professer wants to bring 4 independent studies together and start drawing conclusions based on their collective findings - I say "great" and have at it. But if I commission a group to study something and their findings (when taken independently) are inconclusive - I reserve the right to restrict the study to those findings in my final report. There's nothing dishonest about that, nor is there anything that would taint the results of that study. |
||
06-16-2005, 05:41 PM | #74 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Here
|
so linking studies is bad? So I'm not supposed to reference Einstein's Theories if I'm commisioned by the government to do a study on space time if I think the arguments and conclusions he drew would make my findings stronger? That makes no sense when related to a scientific study.
|
06-16-2005, 05:51 PM | #75 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
Quote:
That's not how science works. Studies are almost always done to either replicate or raise questions about earlier work in the field. Sometimes study findings support earlier work, sometimes it disproves earlier work. Either way, each study contributes to and bulds upon the knowledge base in a particular subject. Nothing is ever done, or evaluated, in a vacuum. |
|
06-16-2005, 07:10 PM | #76 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I agree with both Easy Mac and Klingerware on the idea of linking studies to advance areas of research. My point was simply that if these guys were commissioned to study "X" in relation to global warming and they came back with information that (by itself) is somewhat inconclusive, then I see no reason why the administration should be forced to include data from other studies to help make the point these scientists propose.
Now, back to the guy that modified the summary. I would just like to see the changes that were made and get a second-hand viewing from the NY Times, Fox News, NBC or anyone else. If it alters the documented results of the study, then I will hop right on with the "tar and feather" crew against him. But, there is still a chance that the Times blew this out of proportion if we could ever see the actual changes. As it stands now, I don't know whether this guy made legit changes or not. And, unless you guys work for the Times, you really don't know either. |
06-16-2005, 07:18 PM | #77 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
Did you at least read the Whistleblower memo that was posted twice? It doesn't have both reports, but it is much more comprehensive (as no newspaper is going to do more than they have until this becomes a "big" story). And your ways of describing these studies is suspect. Climate studies are ALWAYS squishy because they come from uncertainty and predict the future. The point is that scientists should be the ones to determine which way the data is leaning (and the originals didn't really have a leaning) rather than oil industry hack political appointees. Let the lifer scientists do their job and get out of the way.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-16-2005, 07:29 PM | #78 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-16-2005, 07:42 PM | #79 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Internets
|
Quote:
I don't think you read the whole thing, because he doesn't get to the editor guy until the end and he adds a little more flavor than the NYT. As for scientific bias, that is why you have lots of scientists and objective analysis. Last minute changes without review by the scientists is always a BAD process.
__________________
I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude |
|
06-18-2005, 02:03 PM | #80 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PA
|
Here ya go Arles, this is one even you should condemn:
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|