Climate Change!

[thaumaturgy]

Up until recently, those big mines were warning us about the coming iceage.

Really? Can you cite me an article by Roger Revelle discussing "the coming iceage"? What about Aarhenius? Any articles by him?

Hey, speaking of the forecasts for the coming ice age...how many articles were written about an oncoming ice age vs warming?

Let's look at the record:

Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.
(citation)

AAAaaaahahahhaha, Then someone figured out how to make trillions of dollars taxing air.

You don't know much of anything about the facts involved in this debate, do you?

 

[idscience]

your not talking about published papers are you. Those papers that could not get published due to censorship? Thats a good one. NIce chart though. Very colorful.

 

[thaumaturgy]

your not talking about published papers are you. Those papers that could not get published due to censorship? Thats a good one. NIce chart though. Very colorful.

So, tell me how many peer reviewed papers you have? How many times have you done peer review?

Can you answer that?

I bet you won't.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Most of the scientists I know, usually follow the money. Not prickly, just predictable.

Scientists in hiding | The Spectator

YOU know scientists? I'm impressed.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, tell me how many peer reviewed papers you have? How many times have you done peer review?

Can you answer that?

I bet you won't.

I ain't got any.

Would it matter if I did?

For every peer-review, isn't there a peer-review that says the opposite?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Nice try, but didn't say that. What I said was, they are easily manipulated as is evident by the climate fake scientists in East Anglia and Australia.
All you dudes seem to be able to keep cherping is anyone who is a skeptic doesn't know science. That's ok.

Actually there are a few skeptics who are scientists. So I don't say all skeptics are scientifically illiterate.

But most of the ones I run into on discussion boards aren't very scientifically skilled.

Care to share with us what your scientific experience is?

 

[AV1611VET]

YOU know scientists? I'm impressed.

That impresses you, does it?

Does it give us plebeians status to be able to claim we know a scientist?

In that case, scientists can take a hike; just make our lives easier, and do it from a distance, please.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to share with us what your scientific experience is?

I changed red litmus paper to green once -- that's about it.

 

[idscience]

So, tell me how many peer reviewed papers you have? How many times have you done peer review?

Can you answer that?

I bet you won't.

What are you , 13?

 

[Nabobalis]

your not talking about published papers are you. Those papers that could not get published due to censorship? Thats a good one. NIce chart though. Very colorful.

You really don't know how peer review works, nor do you care it seems. No papers get censored. The papers that don't get published are either wrong i.e they take some data and they come to clearly false conclusions or the paper is so poorly written (like this tweet: Science paper rejected today: reviewer comment, "this paper is drier than the floor of the valley of death." #ouch).

Papers can get published which are wrong, but the conclusions and methods used to draw them from the data are correct. Then generally people will publish other papers to argue it they care enough.

Can't wait to see how it goes for me

 

[Elendur]

What are you , 13?

I hope you realize he asked you a question that you didn't answer. Purposefully.
That's what he bet on.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope you realize he asked you a question that you didn't answer. Purposefully.
That's what he bet on.

They're very good at that.

They know better than to ask questions that are supported by Scripture; instead they ask questions that can't be backed up, then act -- that's "act" -- mortified when someone answers with a supposition.

When that happens, we usually get called 'backwater', or something synonymous to it.

Once in awhile, you'll get someone who doesn't know the Bible at all ask a question that is answered by either a clear-cut verse, or by a clear-cut explanation of a basic doctrine.

Then we usually get called 'brainwashed', or something synonymous to it.

 

[jpcedotal]

Both sides of this argument can find legitimate scientists to back them up. That in itself tells me that Climate Change is still just an "educated opinion" at best...at least when it comes to how much humanity actually affects it, positively or negatively.

 

[Elendur]

Both sides of this argument can find legitimate scientists to back them up. That in itself tells me that Climate Change is still just an "educated opinion" at best...at least when it comes to how much humanity actually affects it, positively or negatively.

I've found that there is a trend to ignore facts that points towards your interests. Some go further than that.
There are people who doesn't want research to get through since they will lose something because of it, and go to extreme measures because of it.

(I have information to back this up. I have posted a way to find an article about it but I will post a link as soon as I hit 50 posts.)

This is a case where there are PLENTY of people who lose something if it's true, a lot of those plenty have the economic means to postpone that loss.
Also even if you're not a powerholder it is convenient to tell yourself that it isn't true.

A proverb I think should be applied to this scenario:
"Plan for the worst, hope for the best."

 

[Elendur]

They're very good at that.

They know better than to ask questions that are supported by Scripture; instead they ask questions that can't be backed up, then act -- that's "act" -- mortified when someone answers with a supposition.

When that happens, we usually get called 'backwater', or something synonymous to it.

Once in awhile, you'll get someone who doesn't know the Bible at all ask a question that is answered by either a clear-cut verse, or by a clear-cut explanation of a basic doctrine.

Then we usually get called 'brainwashed', or something synonymous to it.

But idscience still didn't answer it. Any answer (to the question) would have sufficed but idscience avoided it completely.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I ain't got any.

Would it matter if I did?

For every peer-review, isn't there a peer-review that says the opposite?

Nope.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That impresses you, does it?

Does it give us plebeians status to be able to claim we know a scientist?

Oh, no, you totally misunderstood me, AV! I am just impressed that someone like idscience who talks such trash about science and the peer review process and seems to know so little about how real science runs would actually claim to "know scientists"!

It's like if I sat here and just made up trash talk about Christians filled with gross inaccuracies about Christians and claim stuff about the Christians I knew...

In that case, scientists can take a hike; just make our lives easier, and do it from a distance, please.

Well, again, if you think you are as well educated in science then you don't have to stay away. But just remember: just because you really want to act like your "opinion" is in any way related to science, doesn't necessarily mean you are doing science.

It would be like what my opinion means to running your church.

MY opinion would be that maybe your church should have a few more windows (usually very evangelical churches I've seen have almost no windows). I think it would do you good to have some light in there. And might help you with understanding that there's a big world outside the fold of the congregation.

But I doubt very highly that will change your church's view.

Can I tell your "faith" to take a hike?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I changed red litmus paper to green once -- that's about it.

So what gives you the right to tell science to "take a hike" when you disagree with it?

What would you say to someone who had been a life-long atheist telling you your religion should 'take a hike"?

Would you care about that "opinion"?

(HINT: There's really no "good" answer you can provide to that question. )

 

[thaumaturgy]

What are you , 13?

Wow! I knew you wouldn't answer it!

You talk so big about how corrupt the system is....yet you can't answer a simple question!

 

[thaumaturgy]

You really don't know how peer review works, nor do you care it seems. No papers get censored. The papers that don't get published are either wrong i.e they take some data and they come to clearly false conclusions or the paper is so poorly written (like this tweet: Science paper rejected today: reviewer comment, "this paper is drier than the floor of the valley of death." #ouch).

Papers can get published which are wrong, but the conclusions and methods used to draw them from the data are correct. Then generally people will publish other papers to argue it they care enough.

Can't wait to see how it goes for me

I once got a paper published and drew a conclusion. I had failed to take into account some residual phosphates in my material which would change the pH.

A couple years later I was asked to peer review a paper and in one small section the authors pointed out my error explicity (citing me by name).

I was so happy that the error had been found and the alternative hypothesis suggested I recommended publication.

In another case, my first paper ever that I submitted got pretty good reviews, but one reviewer who knew my advisor just tore me a new one and even demanded to know why my advisor would put her name on this thing that the reviewer suggested was no better than a high school science project.

Well, it was my first time, and it was a reasonable cop (they were mostly upset by my gloss of the pertinent statistics I believe).

I've had an article or two make it into a pretty well respected journal on carbon science and a couple that got slotted into journals that didn't have as big a distribution.

When I did peer review I came to it knowing almost nothing whatsoever about the authors, so there was no bias there. I approached it as I would reading any science paper: did it comport with the science I knew (which was why I was "peer" reviewer), did it make sense? Was it written in such a way as to make it readable?

For those who don't know; a peer review can recommend in many cases that it be published after another round of review and the reviewer usually makes recommendations for either further experimentation or better ways of expressing the findings etc.