This is Why People Cant trust the Global Warming Movement

[Txbroadcaster]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9

[AP Panther Fan]

Wow, off by 340%. What's a decimal or two among friends.;)

From the article...

"The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the air board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend the regulation this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule."

Just curious, what exactly are diesel-related deaths?

[DDBooger]

This is about Air quality (pollution) and poor modeling by a state agency, not AGW.

It sounds like they weighted Diesel too high. California does have some of the worst air pollution by nature of their geography and where the prevailing winds push the stuff.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
This is about Air quality (pollution) and poor modeling by a state agency, not AGW.

It sounds like they weighted Diesel too high. California does have some of the worst air pollution by nature of their geography and where the prevailing winds push the stuff.

It is about the same thing..One side using trumped up numbers to promote their agenda..as the one said in the article


One of the hardest things about being on the board is separating fact from political fancy," Roberts said.

And this is the same board that implmented The Global Warming Act

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
It is about the same thing..One side using trumped up numbers to promote their agenda..as the one said in the article


One of the hardest things about being on the board is separating fact from political fancy," Roberts said.

And this is the same board that implmented The Global Warming Act Still not the same.

Because A did not prove C

in no way contradicts B proving D

Implementation of regulations as a result of AGW is science not only conducted by them. AGW is modeled all over the world and by various agencies, groups and scientists and is the most peer reviewed science there is. The pollution regulations were as a result of this agencies own malfeasance and in no way contradicts the other. The literal interpretation of comparing apples to oranges. Tying one to the other is a political move itself.

This is a regional dilemma, not a global climate issue that deals with weather forcing.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Still not the same.

Because A did not prove C

in no way contradicts B proving D

Implementation of regulations as a result of AGW is science not only conducted by them. AGW is modeled all over the world and by various agencies, groups and scientists and is the most peer reviewed science there is. The pollution regulations were as a result of this agencies own malfeasance and in no way contradicts the other. The literal interpretation of comparing apples to oranges. Tying one to the other is a political move itself.

This is a regional dilemma, not a global climate issue that deals with weather forcing.

Again it is the same thing

When The Enviromental movement in a whole is using data that is not coming up correct it is a problem..does not matter if it is the whole group fudging numbers, or sections inside the movement it means the same things...policies and laws are being created on bad numbers..A science has turned into a political machine that is being used to not better the world thru proper research, but thru numbers that do not add up in the end because billions are at stake.

It amazes me how The green movement will try their best to discredit ANY research that does not back them..they will jump on Well yea Big Oil or a Big Corportation is funding the research, when they are doing the same thing and have the EXACT same thing hanging in the balance...MONEY

And you know I would say the EXACT same thing about any sides using numbers/facts to corrupt the results.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Again it is the same thing You can say it till you turn blue, but anyone can look and see one is about air quality (pollution) and your connecting it to GCC is a deductive fallacy based on an anecdotal incident. Bad science by them in no way shines on others just like BP's in house policies in no way reflect upon Exxon's in house policies.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
When The Enviromental movement in a whole is using data that is not coming up correct it is a problem..does not matter if it is the whole group Saying this is incorrect, as you have used one anecdotal reference and cast aspersions on a whole movement and scientific method. Which in it of itself is incorrect as Environmental movement and climate science are not one in the same. Environmental movements will use statistical aggregates to show their point, but they do leave out the scientific caveat that "under certain conditions" and the chance of error which normally for science fall at .95 statistical relevance and even some that reach the .99 statistical relevance. How one conveys knowledge is not the same as how one creates it. Either you are using the wrong nomenclature or you are tying two distinct structures (environmental groups and science) together.



Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
fudging numbers, or sections inside the movement it means the same things...policies and laws are being created on bad numbersIN particular instances, you can't use a regional issue NOT pertaining to GCC as a reaction to GCC. It's absurd. Fudging numbers occurs, especially when it is done by hyper-political administrations promoting something. Both sides will do it. The nuclear industry tried convincing people that a little radiation was good for us. Cigarette industry tried telling us cigarettes don't cause cancer. That is fudging numbers too but one is hardly reflective of the other's practices as each is unique in its realm.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
[B]..A science has turned into a political machine that is being used to not better the world thru proper research, but thru numbers that do not add up in the end because billions are at stake. In this particular case which is about air quality and pollution. The science in GCC has been peer reviewed so many times it's monotonous. The politicization occurs when the ramifications of those findings have social and economic impacts. We choose cognitive dissonance to convince us something isn't happening, especially when it's occurrence isn't seen or felt immediately and those who stand against it are on the treadmill of those industries driving it.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
.It amazes me how The green movement will try their best to discredit ANY research that does not back them..they will jump on Well yea Big Oil or a Big Corportation is funding the research, when they are doing the same thing and have the EXACT same thing hanging in the balance...MONEYGreen movement doesn't discredit anything. They are an organization that promotes their values. Science discredits, peers discredit. Again, you are using inconsistent terminology for what you are addressing. Ah, yes the false equivocation of both are in it for the money. Big oil funds skepticism and governments fund its promotion. Which would be fine and dandy if the worlds foremost climate science skeptics weren't funded by the government themselves. Including one in UAB who has access to his own satelite. Point is, it is increasingly harder and harder for them to have ground to stand on when they are debunked or rebuffed instantaneously. SCIENTIFICALLY, not by Environmental movements.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
And you know I would say the EXACT same thing about any sides using numbers/facts to corrupt the results. Correct, but in this case you are using one incident about a topic not relative to GCC to denote a portrayal of an entirely different science.

[Blastoderm55]

Boog, you just made my head hurt real bad.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
You can say it till you turn blue, but anyone can look and see one is about air quality (pollution) and your connecting it to GCC is a deductive fallacy based on an anecdotal incident. Bad science by them in no way shines on others just like BP's in house policies in no way reflect upon Exxon's in house policies.

Saying this is incorrect, as you have used one anecdotal reference and cast aspersions on a whole movement and scientific method. Which in it of itself is incorrect as Environmental movement and climate science are not one in the same. Environmental movements will use statistical aggregates to show their point, but they do leave out the scientific caveat that "under certain conditions" and the chance of error which normally for science fall at .95 statistical relevance and even some that reach the .99 statistical relevance. How one conveys knowledge is not the same as how one creates it. Either you are using the wrong nomenclature or you are tying two distinct structures (environmental groups and science) together.


IN particular instances, you can't use a regional issue NOT pertaining to GCC as a reaction to GCC. It's absurd. Fudging numbers occurs, especially when it is done by hyper-political administrations promoting something. Both sides will do it. The nuclear industry tried convincing people that a little radiation was good for us. Cigarette industry tried telling us cigarettes don't cause cancer. That is fudging numbers too but one is hardly reflective of the other's practices as each is unique in its realm.

In this particular case which is about air quality and pollution. The science in GCC has been peer reviewed so many times it's monotonous. The politicization occurs when the ramifications of those findings have social and economic impacts. We choose cognitive dissonance to convince us something isn't happening, especially when it's occurrence isn't seen or felt immediately and those who stand against it are on the treadmill of those industries driving it.

Green movement doesn't discredit anything. They are an organization that promotes their values. Science discredits, peers discredit. Again, you are using inconsistent terminology for what you are addressing. Ah, yes the false equivocation of both are in it for the money. Big oil funds skepticism and governments fund its promotion. Which would be fine and dandy if the worlds foremost climate science skeptics weren't funded by the government themselves. Including one in UAB who has access to his own satelite. Point is, it is increasingly harder and harder for them to have ground to stand on when they are debunked or rebuffed instantaneously. SCIENTIFICALLY, not by Environmental movements.

Correct, but in this case you are using one incident about a topic not relative to GCC to denote a portrayal of an entirely different science.

This again is the SAME board that put the Global Warming initative in 2006 together for California..this is not Exxon/BP..but in same analogy..this is BP failing badly in one dept then saying hey well yea that dept failed on this project, but hey this other project they are doing is AWESOME and perfect. The article even points the same thing out


The setbacks in the air board's research - and the proposed softening of a landmark regulation - raise questions about the performance of the agency as it is in the midst of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 - or AB32 as it is commonly called, one of the state's and the nation's most ambitious environmental policies to date



And your actually not getting my point

Perception is what I am talking about..

This will only help push that belief further along( Right/Wrong)that the research is not solid and not concrete and as the article even stated POLITICS getting in the way..this initative was rushed thru with bad research.

your taking the Green Movement and putting them on this pious mantle well they are funded by the Government they arent in for the money

Uhh lets see..what will get a scientist more research money...status quo? Or the sky is falling the sky is falling throw me more money and I will research more for you.

and BTW..the pollution/global warming is the same argument now and has been for awhile now Fossil Fuels contribute to the GW belief that it is man made..this initiative was directly dealing with that

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
This again is the SAME board that put the Global Warming initative in 2006 together for California..this is not Exxon/BP..but in same analogy..this is BP failing badly in one dept then saying hey well yea that dept failed on this project, but hey this other project they are doing is AWESOME and perfect. The article even points the same thing outIT differs as one was science conducted by them and the other is not. GCC is conducted by various sources. The only connection here to GCC is if this board is reputable enough to make any demands, including GCC, not an argument against GCC



Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
The setbacks in the air board's research - and the proposed softening of a landmark regulation - raise questions about the performance of the agency as it is in the midst of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 - or AB32 as it is commonly called, one of the state's and the nation's most ambitious environmental policies to dateCalling into question THAT agencies ability to make recommendations, not the science behind the recommendation they are making.




Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
And your actually not getting my pointNo, you are not presenting clearly, and you are making a false appeal to deductive reasoning.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
[B]Perception is what I am talking about..Now, in this context, you clearly are saying something different. IT does creat a perception that science is slanted when it is really those dispensing it that are. But, I believe in this case they actually conducted their own analysis, did they not? I may be wrong.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
[B]This will only help push that belief further along( Right/Wrong)that the research is not solid and not concrete and as the article even stated POLITICS getting in the way..this initative was rushed thru with bad research. Correct, especially when it is seen as a portrayal of ALL Science as the title of this thread leads one to believe their poor modeling is reflective of an entirely different science.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
your taking the Green Movement and putting them on this pious mantle well they are funded by the Government they arent in for the money What is pious about it? You're using a religious connotation by saying I have lifted them to anything. All social movements right or left are bent on spreading THEIR values. It's simple understanding of organization structure and agental action.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Uhh lets see..what will get a scientist more research money...status quo? Or the sky is falling the sky is falling throw me more money and I will research more for you.Again, those skeptics are also funded with govt money, in fact per capita they receive more as their are far less of them. Bad example.


Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
and BTW..the pollution/global warming is the same argument now and has been for awhile now Fossil Fuels contribute to the GW belief that it is man made..this initiative was directly dealing with that No, as a matter of fact it is not. one is distinctly different from the other. Your statement about perceptions is effected by individuals who think like this. Their are differences. Sorry I have to leave to teach class, but I think I know what your are trying to say. Distrust. Plain and simple.

Sorry for any typos.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
IT differs as one was science conducted by them and the other is not. GCC is conducted by various sources. The only connection here to GCC is if this board is reputable enough to make any demands, including GCC, not an argument against GCC


Calling into question THAT agencies ability to make recommendations, not the science behind the recommendation they are making.



No, you are not presenting clearly, and you are making a false appeal to deductive reasoning.

Now, in this context, you clearly are saying something different. IT does creat a perception that science is slanted when it is really those dispensing it that are. But, I believe in this case they actually conducted their own analysis, did they not? I may be wrong.

Correct, especially when it is seen as a portrayal of ALL Science as the title of this thread leads one to believe their poor modeling is reflective of an entirely different science.

What is pious about it? You're using a religious connotation by saying I have lifted them to anything. All social movements right or left are bent on spreading THEIR values. It's simple understanding of organization structure and agental action.

Again, those skeptics are also funded with govt money, in fact per capita they receive more as their are far less of them. Bad example.

No, as a matter of fact it is not. one is distinctly different from the other. Your statement about perceptions is effected by individuals who think like this. Their are differences. Sorry I have to leave to teach class, but I think I know what your are trying to say. Distrust. Plain and simple.

Sorry for any typos.

Please Stop Post Padding!! :p