**SlackerInc **is just falling into Lysenkoism here.
Let’s have some respect for the English language here. “Doctoring data” would be like actually editing a dataset, tampering with measuring equipment, that kind of thing. Or leaving out the measurements that skew the average in a direction you don’t want to go. That last is closest to what I’m referring to, but it’s on the other side of the line because it’s labeled as just being cooling degree days. However, the “lawyer” for the opposing argument is also perfectly free to point out the omission in making his/her case, as I am doing.
BTW, it’s sad how people take the comparison to lawyers as a grave insult. The bar association holds attorneys to a very high standard of honesty. Didn’t Bill Clinton get disbarred, for instance?
It’s a good point: I’ve experienced such: one time the furnace was out for weeks in a place I rented.
But this is what I’m talking about: let’s just get all the stuff out there, put it up for consideration. Or at least not get mad if you put out the stuff you want, but someone else points out the stuff that’s missing.
Yeah, they’re not doing that thing you seem to think they’re doing.
Technically no: he was only temporarily suspended in Arkansas, and he resigned from the Supreme Court bar before the proposed disbarment there went through. Not sure why this is relevant, but there you go.
Lawyers are salesmen, scientists are finders of fact. The entire purpose of science is to separate the real from the not-real, to transition from a state of ignorance to knowledge.
That isn’t a lawyer’s job. They are not finders of fact, they do not bring our society to a higher state of understanding, they argue points of law, for a client who is paying them to make a specific argument. A scientist who does that isn’t being a scientist.
Some lawyers (think ACLU, labor lawyers, etc.) aren’t as mercenary as you describe. That’s more what I had in mind.
Well, lets see what the experts said about the ones that “skewed” the results the other way:
Editors at the Science journal that published the contrarian research by Soon and Baliunas that proposed that most climate scientists were doing that skewing found after review that Soon and Bailunas got it grossly wrong
And the editors of the journal the research of Soon and Bailunas was published at resigned in disgrace for not being so diligent in their review of the research by Soon and Bailunas. Unfortunately, it was too late to prevent the Republican congress to use that tainted research to ignore what the overwhelming number of experts said about the issue.
Later, it was found that Soon had received $1.25 million in funding from energy companies over a period of 14 years, and that he “forgot” to report that funding.
Not a surprise really, but as noticed already, even here at the SDMB that was noticed ages ago.
GIGO, I know you are ESL, but do you have the idiom “straw man” in your native language? That’s what these scientists you are tearing down are, since no one has cited them AFAICR.
I’m going to pull two quotes from the Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility (NY)
These are lines from Canons 5 & 7 of the code.
Lawyers, whatever lawyer it is, has a responsibility to their client, to advocate solely for the benefit of the client, and to represent that client zealously. Scientists do not have “clients”, they should not be loyal or zealous regarding a particular side of an issue, they should go where the data takes them.
They were one of the main sources used by many denier groups to declare that there is “evidence” of that “skewing” going on by most climate scientists. If that is not a basis for your point about the skewing, one then has to conclude that you are using an even bigger argument from ignorance.
It is worse IMHO because it would had been not much of a problem to just declare that you got that mistaken view from questionable sources that should be removed from your bookmarks or de-friend a few guys from social media.
What I point out here is that you are even an ignorant about where the ideas come regarding the attempt of discrediting climate science by pointing at an assumed skewing. And then you also are an ignorant of who is funding the distribution of that misinformation.
So, back to the latest episode of Slack Thinking, where are we> Let’s see, the usual couple of attempts at “No, you are”, and “you just don’t understand my genius”, then onto your normal wibbling:
That freezing to death vs heat stroke “verbiage”, as you put it, would be your specific (and demonstrably wrong) claim that “a lot more people will be saved from freezing to death than will die in heat waves”. I’m glad you’re now acknowledging that it was just bullshit, that’s progress of a sort. Just a shame you try to prevaricate further by then implying that the only places being asked to cut emissions are ones which won’t be dramatically impacted by climate change. You seem to be missing the part that the entire developed world is being asked to address this, including countries like India and China, who most certainly do have skin in the game if you look at projected impact from climate change
So maybe a half step forward in your thinking, followed by the predictable side step and back a bit. Hey ho, I’m patient, and schooling you was always going to be an open ended task. Onto the next piece of nonsense:
You mean the report that actually makes the very point you’re claiming they missed (“A large range in seasonal air temperature causes energy demand for both heating and cooling, with the highest demand for winter heating. The demand for heating in major midwestern cities is typically five to seven times that for cooling”) and makes a number of other observations about possible positives (“yields have a two in three chance of increasing early in this century due to CO2 fertilization”,
“increased productivity of some crops due to higher temperatures, longer growing seasons, and elevated CO2 concentrations”, etc)?
Well, you’re consistent, I’ll give you that. You don’t read your own cites, but you don’t bother to read other people’s cites either.
GIGO, try to maybe run my posts through the translator again. I’m not signing on to any theory that climate scientists are skewing their data. I’m not claiming the warming isn’t happening, isn’t going to continue, or that human activity isn’t responsible. I’m only pointing out that the people who prepare these reports, and the media outlets that report on them, present the data that lands on the “negative effects of climate change” ledger, and not the stuff that goes on the positive side. Then right wingers argue that it’s not happening at all, and no one (in the media at least) brings up the positives of climate change that also should be weighed when deciding how far to go with mitigation efforts. That’s what I’m doing.
Did I read that ENTIRE report? Obviously not, and it’s absurd given the number of posts here to expect anyone to do that. This thread isn’t my full time job.
So great: it’s buried somewhere in the report. People skim reports and look at the colorful maps and charts. Why isn’t it included in the map with the cooling degree days? And why do cooling degree days get exact numbers, but heating degree days only get a more general, non-quantified mention in the sentence you quoted?
ETA: And why are you such a purist that you cannot contain your umbrage at a fellow(?) Democrat who supports green energy, public transit, bikeshare, etc., but does not share your (or AOC’s) sense of urgency about climate change? Do you think you can get anything you want by shrinking your tent to include only those who want to sign on to the maximalist approach?
Even more ignorance, a lot of the items reported as myths and the many, many times mentioned replies to them show that many of the deniers do use those already reported meager positives in an effort to discredit the science as a whole.
So, yes; the right wing, who are usually deniers, does mention those meager positives, a lot indeed.
An ignorant that agrees with me is still an ignorant. 
But GIGO, this is your M.O. I have seen you do it over and over. You cite and quote people who haven’t been mentioned in the thread, shoot them down, and declare victory. It’s weak argumentation, in any language.
Nope, it is clear that you are an ignorant of even the basics on this issue. And I’m talking also about how denier propaganda even gets to people that are on the left side of things.
Not a problem really if one wants to learn, but a problem when IMHO wants to press the argument that one is so smart that he or she thinks they are using a good argument when in reality it is an argument that comes manufactured from sources with an interest to mislead others.
I already noticed that you fell for it and other misleading points regarding climate change and the science of it elsewhere in the SDMB, meaning that once again you need to unfollow many sources that you are using or de-friend some guys that are really fiends.
Didn’t you learn anything from the last time your stupid ass tried to talk shit about something you didn’t actually fucking read?
Yeah, and when oncologists give the “bad news”, they only talk about the negative side of cancer. They don’t talk about all the weight you will lose, or the money you will save on hair care.
That’s what you are doing.
:smack:
GIGO, go to Google. Type “define climate denier”. You will presumably get the same definition I just got:
“a person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring.”
I don’t reject that proposition. I agree with it. Therefore I am not a denier. Do you understand this now, or do I need to come up with even simpler words to explain it to you?