4 ms·

This is valueless and trollish. It proves nothing other than that uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the

This is valueless and trollish. It proves nothing other than that uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the debate, which you already knew.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
As I said, I was pressed for time, but the first few links I clicked on all had "research", "study", "survey", or "report" in the body text. That's not just somebody's opinion. Usually with nouns like this there is funding and somebody somewhat professional behind it. But if it's just rampant speculation by uninformed people I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to spam the board. Care to prove your point that somehow all of these reports, surveys, studies, and findings are bogus? Or is this just a way not to deal with the overwhelming amount of research with unusual conclusions that somehow links into climate change? By the way, my guess is that this is a conservative list, created for impact. The actual list of suspicious links and conclusions is probably much more boring -- and much more extensive. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  The only thing to say there is that words like research and survey tend to be ten a penny; especially in areas like this. Additionally it's got to be so hard to filter out things that aren't just tengentially caused. I'm sure many of this links hold valuable info and insight. My only concern is that this isn't the correct way to combine it all: I might do some research and combine a paper if I get some spare time.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Exactly. Most of what is called "research" is just an attempt to prove something someone already believed. They come up with a theory, set out to prove it, and toss out any data contrary to their theory unseen. This happens on both sides of any high-stakes debate. You'd have to be pretty naive to not know this. Even if every single thing on this list is bullshit, which much probably is, all it proves is that this issue has long since left the realm of actual scientific debate. People who support the theory think everyone who denies it is ignorant, but most supporters (of which I am one, vaguely) don't realize that their team is full of ignorance too. I suppose maybe it's useful to point that out, I just assume everyone here already knows this.
- sp332 17y ago
  This isn't a conservative list, just look at the first link (Acne). It has no author and no data!
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    conservative == reduced in size. Not conservative == reticent to include Should have used "abbreviated", "reduced", "brief", or "terse", instead of conservative. Bad word choice If anything, the selection criteria itself looks to tend towards the strange and unusual. I'm guessing that the quality, if any, of the research had very little impact on selection criteria.
- cromulent 17y ago
  The title you chose is "complete list", but your guess is "conservative list". I suspect the difference between your guess and the H1 you chose is caused by global warming. Perhaps. I clicked on a few links - two were 404's, one said that it wasn't caused by GW but was exacerbated by it (ozone repair slowed), one was speculation about shark attacks by a shark expert. One said that nuclear power would probably increase due to global warming. One said that New Zealand would have many fewer melanoma deaths due to GW. The one about jet engines seemed to have nothing to do with GW. It's a good list and a good point. Global warming turned me into a newt. However, IMHO, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere. Edit: Newt reference for those who may not have experienced it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    For somebody so busy? Here I am commenting for hours on HN. Dang, this site is addictive. (sigh) Should have just blogged. Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake. I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about this.
- dzlobin 17y ago
  The climategate scientists also had lots of "studies, surveys and reports"
vixen99 17y ago
I am trying to work out how a large disparate and supposedly valueless list of links to these reports proves that 'uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the debate'. No, I give up.

This is valueless and trollish. It proves nothing other than that uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the debate, which you already knew.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

As I said, I was pressed for time, but the first few links I clicked on all had "research", "study", "survey", or "report" in the body text. That's not just somebody's opinion. Usually with nouns like this there is funding and somebody somewhat professional behind it. But if it's just rampant speculation by uninformed people I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to spam the board. Care to prove your point that somehow all of these reports, surveys, studies, and findings are bogus? Or is this just a way not to deal with the overwhelming amount of research with unusual conclusions that somehow links into climate change? By the way, my guess is that this is a conservative list, created for impact. The actual list of suspicious links and conclusions is probably much more boring -- and much more extensive. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.

ErrantX 17y ago
The only thing to say there is that words like research and survey tend to be ten a penny; especially in areas like this. Additionally it's got to be so hard to filter out things that aren't just tengentially caused. I'm sure many of this links hold valuable info and insight. My only concern is that this isn't the correct way to combine it all: I might do some research and combine a paper if I get some spare time.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Exactly. Most of what is called "research" is just an attempt to prove something someone already believed. They come up with a theory, set out to prove it, and toss out any data contrary to their theory unseen. This happens on both sides of any high-stakes debate. You'd have to be pretty naive to not know this. Even if every single thing on this list is bullshit, which much probably is, all it proves is that this issue has long since left the realm of actual scientific debate. People who support the theory think everyone who denies it is ignorant, but most supporters (of which I am one, vaguely) don't realize that their team is full of ignorance too. I suppose maybe it's useful to point that out, I just assume everyone here already knows this.
sp332 17y ago
This isn't a conservative list, just look at the first link (Acne). It has no author and no data!
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  conservative == reduced in size. Not conservative == reticent to include Should have used "abbreviated", "reduced", "brief", or "terse", instead of conservative. Bad word choice If anything, the selection criteria itself looks to tend towards the strange and unusual. I'm guessing that the quality, if any, of the research had very little impact on selection criteria.
cromulent 17y ago
The title you chose is "complete list", but your guess is "conservative list". I suspect the difference between your guess and the H1 you chose is caused by global warming. Perhaps. I clicked on a few links - two were 404's, one said that it wasn't caused by GW but was exacerbated by it (ozone repair slowed), one was speculation about shark attacks by a shark expert. One said that nuclear power would probably increase due to global warming. One said that New Zealand would have many fewer melanoma deaths due to GW. The one about jet engines seemed to have nothing to do with GW. It's a good list and a good point. Global warming turned me into a newt. However, IMHO, there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere. Edit: Newt reference for those who may not have experienced it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  For somebody so busy? Here I am commenting for hours on HN. Dang, this site is addictive. (sigh) Should have just blogged. Yes. I mistook the H1 for the title. I assure you it was an honest mistake. I also agree with you that there is truth in there. I further agree that the more we work towards a nuclear/green electric future with zero emissions the more enjoyable everything will be, and I support that overall strategy with some caveats. I'm just a process guy at heart, though, and for a couple of years the debate on GW has struck me as being badly broken. I think this is an ominous sign for both politics and science. I hope the current debacle can help reasonable people come up with standards, ethical guidelines, and certification programs that will prevent this mess from happening again. I am doubtful, though. I think climate science has gotten so political that there is going to have to be a severe thrashing taken by one side before the sufficient changes are taken. What can I say? Hopefully I'm very wrong about this.
dzlobin 17y ago
The climategate scientists also had lots of "studies, surveys and reports"

vixen99 17y ago

I am trying to work out how a large disparate and supposedly valueless list of links to these reports proves that 'uninformed people who've made up their mind in the absence of logic exist on both sides of the debate'. No, I give up.