Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#5,426
#5,426
TennTradition said:
That's funny. I have one of those too and it's laughable to assert that even a healthy fraction of 'the others' go meh. I don't know if they're running around chicken little on the doom and gloom but they're also not widely disagreeing with the basics.
Click to expand...

It's 10,883 to 2.
 
#5,427
#5,427
MaxamusXIII said:
Hey, that's what's happening now.

Thanks for finally ending this thread.
Click to expand...

It's what's always been happening. You know the study of AGW is about additional forcing of climate caused by man on a time scale faster than orbital shifts, therefore placing greater stress on the environment/ecosystems to adapt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,428
#5,428
TennTradition said:
It's what's always been happening. You know the study of AGW is about additional forcing of climate caused by man on a time scale faster than orbital shifts, therefore placing greater stress on the environment/ecosystems to adapt.
Click to expand...

It has been explained but they either aren't capable of understanding it or are unwilling to.

These "experts" here sure don't know much about a claim they are absolutely sure isn't true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,429
#5,429
TennTradition said:
It's what's always been happening. You know the study of AGW is about additional forcing of climate caused by man on a time scale faster than orbital shifts, therefore placing greater stress on the environment/ecosystems to adapt.
Click to expand...

I believe they believe it in the same way they believed the bp oil spill would take decades for the gulf to recover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,430
#5,430
TennTradition said:
It does honestly have its problems. I don't think those manifest into grandiose coverups. But they can slow progress by not pushing the frontier hard enough. They can also allow less than the best work through because of who wrote it or various other reasons.

I do think that too much of climate science has it's back to the wall or the wagons circled. It hurts scientific progress. Everything has to be so carefully packaged because there are people waiting to prounce on the smallest thing. So rather than being it up I could see some holding their tounge. That's bad for the field. I can't say with any facts that this is happening, but from a distance I could see it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but would add the "pounce on the smallest thing" mentality goes both ways to an extent
 
#5,431
#5,431
mrorange211 said:
While believing that this is some clever insult, it only, once again, reveals how useless it is to discuss anything of value with you.

So, wanna talk about tits and beer? I'm always down for beer/tits discussion
Click to expand...

If you had any experience with peer reviewed publications you would understand how true his statement is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,432
#5,432
TennTradition said:
It's what's always been happening. You know the study of AGW is about additional forcing of climate caused by man on a time scale faster than orbital shifts, therefore placing greater stress on the environment/ecosystems to adapt.
Click to expand...

The problem is you have too many with political agendas involved in the science declaring the science settled when it isn't and it is obvious that "group think" is affecting their research and weakening the science. And, please don't tell me the IPCC is a science panel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,433
#5,433
mrorange211 said:
I was waiting on your reply. Let's get to it shall we?

The first link:

Quote directly from the source:



The process isn't perfect, as your wonderful link explains by giving the example of the 'power of prayer in healing patients', but it's the best way for academics to publish ground breaking research to their fields. DNA Molecular structure: peer reviewed. AIDS research: peer reviewed Chemotherapy breakthrough: peer reviewed. And I could go on and on and on. But since there are bad things in peer review means the whole thing is discredited, duh. I mean f*** the Catholic church and the good they do because they had some priests who molested children. Yeah!

Second link:

Quoted directly from the source:



Most researchers today are handing off the research to greater statistical minds for verification. That were many of the errors occurred in the past: statistics. That's one of the main causes from this article. The problem has been diagnosed and the community is working hard to fix it. Garbage in and garbage out you say? No. Garbage in perhaps, but the process is only getting better at making sure garbage doesn't come out.

Third Link:

Quote from the source:



Do you get your news from the National Enquirer? What about Inside Edition? To say that all peer-reviewed journals are the same is such BS, and that's the point of the author that you cited: some journals are only doing it for the money, not the actual science. Guess what? And this is gonna be awesome for you: of those 10,800 CC studies that were done with only 2 that said CC wasn't man-made, 90% of them were published in journals or a considerably high reputation. Ouch, I know.

Fourth Link:



Yet another link you presented that is not against peer-reviewed journals but against those journals that are trying to make money off the authors. The system is changing, right now, because awareness is being raised about the problem: the journals don't care about quality, only about quantity. Good thing real researchers know the difference in these journals, right? Kinda like you know the difference between the BBC and MTV.

Fifth Link:



No $hit there weren't the mechanisms around for journals at that point.



I never said that peer reviewed journals were perfect, only that they are the best way to get the cutting edge idea of academia today. Mistakes happen, and I will never say that the process is completely flawless.


So you are correct in a way: there is garbage in, garbage out on a frequent basis, and it just so happens to occur when I see another post from you.
Click to expand...

See the bold statement in your reply. The problem with short sighted people like you is that they see the results of a problem and call that the problem. The problem with the Catholic church is not with a few Priests, it is with church management who perpetuated the problem by not solving it and transferring those priests instead of purging them.

The same goes for climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years and we have 135 years of recorded weather (and we don't have even that much of recorded "climate information") and people are attempting to project future climate activity using a miniscule amount of known information. If that in itself isn't bad enough they have been caught altering the information they put in so that the projected outcomes match their desired result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,434
#5,434
KentheOrange said:
If you had any experience with peer reviewed publications you would understand how true his statement is.
Click to expand...

I have experience, that's how I know.


KentheOrange said:
See the bold statement in your reply. The problem with short sighted people like you is that they see the results of a problem and call that the problem. The problem with the Catholic church is not with a few Priests, it is with church management who perpetuated the problem by not solving it and transferring those priests instead of purging them.

The same goes for climate change. Climate has been changing for millions of years and we have 135 years of recorded weather (and we don't have even that much of recorded "climate information") and people are attempting to project future climate activity using a miniscule amount of known information. If that in itself isn't bad enough they have been caught altering the information they put in so that the projected outcomes match their desired result.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I can make this simple for you: I used the Catholic church as an example because we would not say the church is all bad because of a few bad apple. Thus, it is inappropriate to apply that same logic to peer-reviewed journals. And yes, the process needs to be tightened, and guess what? That's what they are doing through the process of publication. Once a journal is discredited for publishing some questionable articles, subscribers drop and the journal loses all credibility in publication. That is death for a journal. My answer was not short-sighted; just somewhat over your head apparently.

Oh, and the whole CC thing, you're wrong...again. Of those 10,800 published last year, 90% were located in journals of international repute. You know, the journals where they don't make up the data, etc etc etc for the example you used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,436
#5,436
mrorange211 said:
I have experience, that's how I know.




Let's see if I can make this simple for you: I used the Catholic church as an example because we would not say the church is all bad because of a few bad apple. Thus, it is inappropriate to apply that same logic to peer-reviewed journals. And yes, the process needs to be tightened, and guess what? That's what they are doing through the process of publication. Once a journal is discredited for publishing some questionable articles, subscribers drop and the journal loses all credibility in publication. That is death for a journal. My answer was not short-sighted; just somewhat over your head apparently.

Oh, and the whole CC thing, you're wrong...again. Of those 10,800 published last year, 90% were located in journals of international repute. You know, the journals where they don't make up the data, etc etc etc for the example you used.
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can make this simple for you. 1300 independent scientists can't even construct a model or make a prediction. They use data that is massaged, manipulated and cherry picked and are surprised when their predictions don't come true based on this faulty data. The UN is an organization that is political and not scientific and we have no business making decisions based on their political agendas especially when that entity is so anti USA. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,438
#5,438
Mtntrout said:
I probably have as much experience with them as anyone. His statement isn't true.
Click to expand...

Peer review process has always been political and biased. Go back and read about the life of Albert Einstein and Max Planck and you'd know that. But with something that has been so politicized like Climate Science you can trust very little that is being produced. There is some good science that is being lost in the fog but what they think they know about the climate and temperature is no where near what they actually know. In my opinion that science is still in its infancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,441
#5,441
f*** empirical evidence because THE FREE MARKET!

Yee-haw!

fyeahamerica-montage.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,442
#5,442
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,445
#5,445
Mtntrout said:
It has been explained but they either aren't capable of understanding it or are unwilling to.

These "experts" here sure don't know much about a claim they are absolutely sure isn't true.
Click to expand...

Your smug pomposity is unbecoming. We know exactly what you are saying, we just don't believe it. But hey, you school teachers and pseudo scientists go on preaching, is all good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,448
#5,448
82_VOL_83 said:
Your smug pomposity is unbecoming. We know exactly what you are saying, we just don't believe it. But hey, you school teachers and pseudo scientists go on preaching, is all good.
Click to expand...

Your willful ignorance is shameful. You do not know what I am saying, as has been demonstrated by the same questions being asked over and over by the same people in this thread, statements that are verifiably false, and a persistent belief in the a vast conspiracy that would be necessary to produce and maintain the multitude of detailed and independent lines of evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top