U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: WA
4,247 posts, read 7,479,494 times
Reputation: 2352

Advertisements

This is when I get on my pedestal about public access journals. One of the big reasons why this debate even exists is because scientists have access to all of the academic journals at a touch of the button whereas the general public has to rely on bloggers who copy individual graphs from these articles and put their own interpretation (despite not actually having access to the data or understanding the statistics).




Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Pay walled? You don't say?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:21 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Both studies assert that man had something to do with the effects they document.

Neither study proves it.

The 0-for-everything record of failure continues.

Com'on now Little Acorn, they prove it! They use models that confirm their assumptions as correct! See, they proved it!

And don't you question them on their math, they have a couple of semesters of calculus behind them, their math is "guud"!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:23 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
This is when I get on my pedestal about public access journals. One of the big reasons why this debate even exists is because scientists have access to all of the academic journals at a touch of the button whereas the general public has to rely on bloggers who copy individual graphs from these articles and put their own interpretation (despite not actually having access to the data or understanding the statistics).

Yeah, imagine public research being freely accessible to the public which pays for it. I know, it is absurd!

As for your claim of snips, most who actually do commentary (the ones I read) on the research provide a full access to the copy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:24 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,585 posts, read 7,657,703 times
Reputation: 4144
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlenextyear View Post
This is when I get on my pedestal about public access journals. One of the big reasons why this debate even exists is because scientists have access to all of the academic journals at a touch of the button whereas the general public has to rely on bloggers who copy individual graphs from these articles and put their own interpretation (despite not actually having access to the data or understanding the statistics).
So the reason that Manmade-Global-Whatever fanatics have racked up a perfect record of failure to present even ONE study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change, across the entire country for 40-plus years despite all their caterwauling and strident demands that government spend $trillions and clamp down on everyone's lifestyle, is because bloggers didn't want to pay the access fees to the studies?

I have to admit, that's a new one. I hadn't heard that particular excuse for their failure, before.

Hats off to seattlenextyear!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:27 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
So the reason that Manmade-Global-Whatever fanatics have racked up a perfect record of failure to present even ONE study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change, across the entire country for 40-plus years despite all their caterwauling and strident demands that government spend $trillions and clamp down on everyone's lifestyle, is because bloggers didn't want to pay the access fees to the studies?

I have to admit, that's a new one. I hadn't heard that particular excuse for their failure, before.

Hats off to seattlenextyear!


Well, their mantra is that we are being manipulated by the lies of big oil. With that sort of reasoning, there is no other conclusion than to come up with silly excuses as to why their position is failing.

Its the aliens I tell ya! They are brain washing people! *chuckle*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:40 AM
 
14,853 posts, read 7,975,971 times
Reputation: 5649
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
I had to look up CAGW because that is not what it is called in the scientific community. I had to look up Hansen because in science the relevancy is the evidence not the people.

The only reason to make it about individual people is to avoid talking about the actual science. Take out all of the papers published by all of the people you mentioned above. There are still thousands of papers that passed peer review that also support anthropogenic climate change.
you aren’t being honest when you talk down guys like Hansen. I’m not going to argue that point.


I’ve read hundreds of these papers. What I find mostly is that the earth has warmed some.

on the physics, clearly CO2 causes some warming too and some of the rise in CO2 has been caused by humans. How much of the rise we have seen in the last 50 years is still a point of contention.

What has not been demonstrated in any paper that does not rely on modeling is the idea of forcing. That is to say, the warming we have seen will lead to further warming which will create its own spiral of warming leading to catastrophic events.

So do I accept that we are warmer now than in 1970? Of course. Does that make me agree with the vast majority of scientists? Well, yes it does. But like a lot of scientists, I do not believe this warming is leading to irreversible warming that will cause cataclysmic fallout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:50 AM
 
14,853 posts, read 7,975,971 times
Reputation: 5649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
So the reason that Manmade-Global-Whatever fanatics have racked up a perfect record of failure to present even ONE study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change, across the entire country for 40-plus years despite all their caterwauling and strident demands that government spend $trillions and clamp down on everyone's lifestyle, is because bloggers didn't want to pay the access fees to the studies?

I have to admit, that's a new one. I hadn't heard that particular excuse for their failure, before.

Hats off to seattlenextyear!


on the physics, of CO2 proves warming of about a half a degree Fahrenheit as a direct result of the increase in CO2 from pre-industrial time until now.

It is believed that the number was about 280ish? Before the Industrial Revolution and now is around 390ish? Now part of that increase is human caused. However, part of it could very well be the natural rise that should be expected 800 years after the Medieval Warming Period. How much is man and how much is natural? That right there is the rub….

Apart from that, you are right. No peer review papers that deal with observed changes show positive feedback which would lead to CAGW.

However, on the skeptical side, there are a number of papers that at the very least show evidence of negative feedback which leads to the notion that the earth “self corrects”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 11:53 AM
 
14,853 posts, read 7,975,971 times
Reputation: 5649
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
LOL!

How do you think we found out that Mann's graph was flawed? A paper by a skeptic was PUBLISHED in a peer reviewed journal. A major one. No one was fired over it.

I like the way you spin things! You are so sure and positive and consise!

but its still spin.

Here is the dirty truth.

SM and RM tried to get their paper published in the same place Mann's work was published... and failed.

They shopped it to a number fo journals that also rejected them. Then they eventually got published in a much smaller less "esteemed" journal Energy and Environment.

Ask any CAGW starlet-scientist what they think of that journal. it aint pretty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 12:41 PM
 
Location: WA
4,247 posts, read 7,479,494 times
Reputation: 2352
Yup, here comes the smiley faces. Soon Sity Data will be in here pasting in pictures of Bumblefart, Alaska.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
So the reason that Manmade-Global-Whatever fanatics have racked up a perfect record of failure to present even ONE study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change, across the entire country for 40-plus years despite all their caterwauling and strident demands that government spend $trillions and clamp down on everyone's lifestyle, is because bloggers didn't want to pay the access fees to the studies?

I have to admit, that's a new one. I hadn't heard that particular excuse for their failure, before.

Hats off to seattlenextyear!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 02:14 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 10,726,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
I like the way you spin things! You are so sure and positive and consise!

but its still spin.

Here is the dirty truth.

SM and RM tried to get their paper published in the same place Mann's work was published... and failed.

They shopped it to a number fo journals that also rejected them. Then they eventually got published in a much smaller less "esteemed" journal Energy and Environment.

Ask any CAGW starlet-scientist what they think of that journal. it aint pretty.
It is insulting how fast some supporting CAGW work gets published too. I remember Trenberth published a response to a piece of controversial research and it was like a couple days turn around while the paper he was attacking took months jumping through a ridiculous politically styled bureaucracy to get published.

Sometimes I think their idea of "peer review" is a football teammate running down the middle of lineup high fiving everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top