Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is peer reviewed the only real standard that sets appart agenda driven scientific work with credible scientific work? Every time an article is written that doesn't support global warming, it is quickly written off by alarmist as being funded by Exxon or one of the oil companies. It has been shown that Exxon has funded a few thinktank groups $19million in the course of 6 years. Pretty small amount of money if you ask me, considering there are about 5 or 6 relatively large places dividing the money up. Simple math: $575k per group per year.
This funding wasn't hidden, and considering in the same time frame Exxon's profits exceeded $100billion, that is straight out chump change. Seems to me if they were really worried about supporting a cover up, they would drop more money on it.
So anyway, just because an article isn't a peer reviewed article doesn't mean it is invalid. There are plenty of articles that are on the alarmist side, and usually I see people pointing out the flaws, not relying on some line about "Green Mountain energy has them in their pockets".
Peer-reviewing is extremely important in science because the articles that make it through the process have been combed over for inaccuracies and misstatements. Non-peer reviewed articles don't go through the same scrutiny so it's easier to make statistics lie and logic boggle.
But most of what we see in magazines, newspapers and tv news supporting global warming is just that, articles. They aren't peer reviewed articles, yet they seem to get a free pass regardless of how scientific they are. Dispute global warming and the alarmist immediately as if someone pressed a button on their brain start saying "Exxon! Exxon!". There is plenty of peer reviewed information that cast doubts on the alarmist view.
But most of what we see in magazines, newspapers and tv news supporting global warming is just that, articles. They aren't peer reviewed articles, yet they seem to get a free pass regardless of how scientific they are.
The job of responsible mainstream journalists is to translate the peer-reviewed literature for the masses because, let's be honest, few of us can read a peer-reviewed journal without going "HUH???"
But every journalist has a bias, as we all know, so they have the option to selectively quote from various articles in order to construct a story. This is how you've become brainwashed into thinking that global warming is a hoax concocted by left wing journalists --- you're getting all your information from right wingers who selectively quote from peer-reviewed articles while quoting extensively from non-reviewed articles.
Have fun with that. And a quick "Hello!" to all who will jump in here and scream at me for being an alarmist. I'm not. I don't really care. I'm interested in science and I'm amused by scientifically illiterate people who try to argue with scientists.
The job of responsible mainstream journalists is to translate the peer-reviewed literature for the masses because, let's be honest, few of us can read a peer-reviewed journal without going "HUH???"
But every journalist has a bias, as we all know, so they have the option to selectively quote from various articles in order to construct a story. This is how you've become brainwashed into thinking that global warming is a hoax concocted by left wing journalists --- you're getting all your information from right wingers who selectively quote from peer-reviewed articles while quoting extensively from non-reviewed articles.
Have fun with that. And a quick "Hello!" to all who will jump in here and scream at me for being an alarmist. I'm not. I don't really care. I'm interested in science and I'm amused by scientifically illiterate people who try to argue with scientists.
You are normally reasonable, but now you are resorting to trying to discredit people who don't agree with you, rather than disagreeing with specific things and giving a reason.
That is the lowest form of debate. Congratulations. You should be proud.
The point is that the scientists are still arguing.
That is the entire point of science. But on this particular score, there is not very much argument left. Pretty much all the yeah-but's have failed to carry the day...
That is the entire point of science. But on this particular score, there is not very much argument left. Pretty much all the yeah-but's have failed to carry the day...
It depends on what you define as the argument.
If you are referring to the fact that the globe is warming, then yes, almost everyone is in agreement.
If you are referring to whether or not man has caused the warming, there is still argument there.
If you are referring to whether or not we can stop emitting CO2 and magically adjust the thermostat for the planet, there is even more debate there.
The media's job isn't to decide things for us, it is supposed to present both sides of an argument and let people figure out what they think. AGW has been one of the most clear cut cases ever of the media completely pushing one side of an agenda. I personally think its because of our media's style. Destruction, chaos, disorder, and in general BAD news is their interest. The alarmist view of global warming has all of those traits, so for them it a story that will give them unlimited scaremongering stories if they stick to the alarmist side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
