The subject was AGW studies.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
That was just plain hilarious.
Most of what the EPA is citing is stuff from AGW studies... why would you have a problem with sources being disclosed and data being reproducible?
Can you cite an instance where that isn't the case already? As far as I can see it's all based on openly published peer reviewed science although you may have to go through an additional layer like the IPCC WG1 report to get to the original source.
The problem isn't the level so much as the rate it's changing. If CO2 rose to 800 ppm over 5,000-10,000 years it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
I know of at least 3 rightist scientists who would laugh at your characterization of climate science being fused with leftist ideology.
It requires a regulating body to base their decisions on public data. That means data must be opened to the public AND they aren't allowed to pass regulations that go against sound science.
I'd like you to point out at least a couple of instances where that isn't true of the EPA's findings already.
But go ahead - tell me how global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of thousands of scientists around the world for political reasons. [snicker]
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.
So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?
The reason we have ISIS is that we were in such a rush to leave IRAQ we didn't bother to finish stabilizing the situation.
We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.
The middle class has been fading ever since Reagan was President. It's a product of supply side economics and the emphasis on the wealthy and the demonization of unions. The rich keep getting richer leaving less money available for the rest of us.
Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.
So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.
No one has done that and even if you took the raw unadjusted data and used that the results wouldn't be much different than using adjusted data.
If you think they're trying to take your money now just wait til you have to pay the cost of adapting to global warming.
Actually the next ice age is indefinitely postponed until CO2 levels drop below about 250 ppm again.
Because news organizations think the error bars are too confusing for regular people. They're probably right. But the probabilities of 2014 being the hottest year were mentioned prominently in the joint NOAA/NASA press conference on the subject. Here are the graphics from that press conference. See page 5.
What does that have to do with anything I wrote.
Maybe there is a correlation with temperature and lightening but where is the causation and what way does it flow? My guess would be since warming causes more atmospheric water vapor that could lead to more lightening.