POL - Who needs Kyoto? I have white out.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

How about this on Kyoto: Pollution is bad. We should take steps to reduce and eliminate it. Those who pollute the most should take the greatest steps. The US is on the losing end of the argument in rejecting Kyoto. There's only one reason why the US won't sign -- lobbying by polluters. But since the US opts out of many international treaties (e.g. the international criminal court), it is not surprising.

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.

[Flasch186]

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.

[Arles]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Arles, you are turning into a parody of yourself with your willful ignorance.

Here is Arles apparent view in a nushell:

One can't be too careful when deliberating over the shifting and byzantine web of confusion and doubt that is so-called "climate" "change." Whom should we believe: the unruly mob of every reputable climatologist on the planet, or the selfless sages at Exxon-Mobil? Uncertainty abounds. We must examine all sides of the issue, take input from all corners: from the side of science, and from the side of oil industry whores paid to lie about science. Someday, somehow, between these complex and opposing points of view, we may just find an answer.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Arles, you are turning into a parody of yourself with your willful ignorance.

Do have specific examples of data being changed in the report for the summary? You certainly haven't provided any to this point and seem to resort to the reply of "If you don't believe me then you are ignorant" instead of simply posting the info to refute my concern.

Here is Arles apparent view in a nushell:

It doesn't matter if you think this guy is secretly planning and scheming to turn the world into a large septic tank, the reality is I haven't seen anything in this report by the White House that leads me to believe he altered the data or results in any manner.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

It doesn't matter if you think this guy is secretly planning and scheming to turn the world into a large septic tank, the reality is I haven't seen anything in this report by the White House that leads me to believe he altered the data or results in any manner.

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.

Arles, have you read a single news report on this story?

Many of the changes were very simple. For instance, in one case he added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties. In another, he added the word "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

Others were more blatant. According to the New York Times, Cooney deleted an entire paragraph dealing with the impact of global warming on glaciers and the polar ice cap from a 2002 report that discussed the effect global warming might have on flooding and water availability. Cooney noted in the margins that the paragraph was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

In all cases, the amendments cast doubt on scientific results that are increasingly accepted as robust by the scientific community, and by the general populace.

Cooney is a lawyer by training, with a degree in economics.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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!!

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.)

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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.

Beautiful.

SI

[JPhillips]

Can I get one? A trip to Arizona would be much better than our current plan to go to China.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

You've been completely spun by the article. The paragraph he deleted referenced another study done back in 2002. It was only there for background and had little to do with the new information learned from the current report. Again, I am still waiting for evidence that he altered the data from the actual study done.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

[odd comparisons]
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......

Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but thanks for the tanget. Now, to the applicable part of your post...

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.

This happens everyday on every study. Company/university/government group A commissions scientists from group B to do a study. Group B goes off and does its study - then it releases the results of the study back to group A (the people that paid for it). Group A then reads the findings, makes some adjustments and sends it out on the behalf of the company/university/government group.

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.)

[Arles]

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

You've been completely spun by the article. The paragraph he deleted referenced another study done back in 2002. It was only there for background and had little to do with the new information learned from the current report. Again, I am still waiting for evidence that he altered the data from the actual study done.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but thanks for the tanget. Now, to the applicable part of your post...


This happens everyday on every study. Company/university/government group A commissions scientists from group B to do a study. Group B goes off and does its study - then it releases the results of the study back to group A (the people that paid for it). Group A then reads the findings, makes some adjustments and sends it out on the behalf of the company/university/government group.

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.)

AND i dont think that that is ok either, see at least im consistent

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

thank you

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

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!!!

This is just untrue. The allegations go well beyond that.

[Flasch186]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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.

[Arles]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Don't you realize yet that people calling the data 'inconclusive' are Exxon-Mobil whores, and that all scientists are pretty united in their findings? Do you think that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has different chemical properties from carbon dioxide produced naturally?

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

This is not a NYT thing, this is sourced by the Governmental Accountability Project. A great memo the GAP has online that tears the Bush administration a new a-hole on the climatology subject: hxxp://www.whistleblower.org/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf . I don't know if they have the actualy documents online, but the guy resigned over it, so it is hard to fathom why you are still defending it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Don't you realize yet that people calling the data 'inconclusive' are Exxon-Mobil whores, and that all scientists are pretty united in their findings? Do you think that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has different chemical properties from carbon dioxide produced naturally?


This is not a NYT thing, this is sourced by the Governmental Accountability Project. A great memo the GAP has online that tears the Bush administration a new a-hole on the climatology subject: hxxp://www.whistleblower.org/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf . I don't know if they have the actualy documents online, but the guy resigned over it, so it is hard to fathom why you are still defending it.

Hey, that's the same memo I posted.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Don't you realize yet that people calling the data 'inconclusive' are Exxon-Mobil whores, and that all scientists are pretty united in their findings? Do you think that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels has different chemical properties from carbon dioxide produced naturally?

I think the fact that the scientists needed to resort to older studies to help back their own findings show that it is not a slam dunk. If it was, the study should be able to stand on its own.

This is not a NYT thing, this is sourced by the Governmental Accountability Project. A great memo the GAP has online that tears the Bush administration a new a-hole on the climatology subject: hxxp://www.whistleblower.org/doc/Memo%20to%20Superiors.pdf . I don't know if they have the actualy documents online, but the guy resigned over it, so it is hard to fathom why you are still defending it.

Because I am actually trying to get to the bottom of this one case without trying to overload people with other instances to get people to "assume" this case was also wrong. The most compelling argument that I've seen on this report issues cites that the administration removed some prior studies from being referenced. And, IMO, that is not the same as altering the concrete facts found in this study.

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.

[Easy Mac]

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the fact that the scientists needed to resort to older studies to help back their own findings show that it is not a slam dunk. If it was, the study should be able to stand on its own.

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.

[Arles]

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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).

It was better and I am interested to see how the prior study that was removed would have impacted the results of this study. My first inclination is that there's nothing wrong with removing citations to different studies when leading an independent study of similar variables. But, if certain things were not studied because they were simply relying on the results of other studies, then that would be a different case (although maybe not the best way to lead an independent study). Still, I am not saying this guy did nothing wrong. I am saying that based on what I have seen, I have yet to see a specific example of his actions impacting the real results of the study. It's one of the reasons I would really like to see what the actual changes were.

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.

That's a fair view. But scientists often have as many political motives as oil hacks, so it could very well be the case that these scientists wanted to bring in other studies to help support conclusion they desired, when perhaps the evidence for this study didn't lead to that conclusion. But, I will certainly admit that I do not that this is the case given what I have seen so far.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

It was better and I am interested to see how the prior study that was removed would have impacted the results of this study. My first inclination is that there's nothing wrong with removing citations to different studies when leading an independent study of similar variables. But, if certain things were not studied because they were simply relying on the results of other studies, then that would be a different case (although maybe not the best way to lead an independent study). Still, I am not saying this guy did nothing wrong. I am saying that based on what I have seen, I have yet to see a specific example of his actions impacting the real results of the study. It's one of the reasons I would really like to see what the actual changes were.


That's a fair view. But scientists often have as many political motives as oil hacks, so it could very well be the case that these scientists wanted to bring in other studies to help support conclusion they desired, when perhaps the evidence for this study didn't lead to that conclusion. But, I will certainly admit that I do not that this is the case given what I have seen so far.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here ya go Arles, this is one even you should condemn:

The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals."

Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: "The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general."

hxxp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,445282.story?coll=la-home-headlines