Comments on: I Thought The Science Of Global Warming Was Settled http://www.onebigdog.net/i-thought-the-science-of-global-warming-was-settled/ "Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right" Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Roger http://www.onebigdog.net/i-thought-the-science-of-global-warming-was-settled/comment-page-1/#comment-128370 Roger Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:55:08 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5870#comment-128370 The only way to get clear data on this is for scientists to perform experiments and data analysis without an initial bias. Bias affects the interpretation of results and the writing of conclusions. Science is supposed to be unbiased. That's theory but in practice it is never so. How can we see reality if all we are looking for is proof of our own opinion? The only way to get clear data on this is for scientists to perform experiments and data analysis without an initial bias. Bias affects the interpretation of results and the writing of conclusions. Science is supposed to be unbiased. That’s theory but in practice it is never so.

How can we see reality if all we are looking for is proof of our own opinion?

]]> By: Global Warming http://www.onebigdog.net/i-thought-the-science-of-global-warming-was-settled/comment-page-1/#comment-128314 Global Warming Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:01:56 +0000 http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=5870#comment-128314 Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen. Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way. “Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress. Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.

“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.

]]>