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, 09:03 AM
 
15,716 posts, read 13,130,937 times
Reputation: 19622

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
*chuckle*

I can't stop laughing.

Man, I would love to see you make that comment to my physics professor, he would make you run out of the room crying (old bastard was mean and had zero tolerance for incompetence and made a point to have you remember your folly very publicly and harshly).
Now Ad homs.

If you cannot beat them with evidence and logic the next stop is logical fallacy. Should we expect strawmen next?

I am published scientist myself. Not in this field but a much more closely related one that your physics prof. Unless you are claiming your physic prof published in this field? Please give a cite in that case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:07 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,057,165 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
The sham that passes for AGW peer review, amounts to Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman Schultz, Kerry, Durban, Biden and the entire DNC chairmanship all peer reviewing Obama's handling of the nations debt and his economic record as president, and declaring it and him, as a total success.
All I can say is that the use of the process in climate science is seriously flawed. The emails really showed the disgrace these people are to scientific study. It is a shame, as I think the study of climate is a noble pursuit and it could be very useful to society if we understand it better, but the way they are going about it is obviously political. It is like they have been taken over by a cult and are mandating their religious cause (note they do speak of "the cause" in the emails often) to the masses. Thier actions have set back that field of study for many many years. It will be a long time before anyone trusts it again (that and the medical research field, it is also a joke).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:10 AM
 
14,298 posts, read 7,711,144 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Peer review is not perfect but we are not talking about a single study. We are literally talking about thousands of thousands of studies. IPCC is a review of the lit NOT a study in and of itself. Flaws with one of the studies it used does not negate other studies in the slightest.

The overwhelming amount of research is readily available for anyone to read and review themselves. But one fraudulent study (and that deseres its own thread) does not remotely mean the other thousands were fraudulent. Hell, when cloning scientist Hwang Woo Suk from Korea was found to have lied about his progress in stem cell research (remember "Snuppy") he was found out by the scientific community through the peer review process.

Morons and liars exist in every field on the planet but only science has this built in system to limit their impact. Its not perfect but it is hugely reliable in the big picture.
The IPCC is an agenda driven, political organization, they should never be referenced in a discussion on science.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is having its own scandal regarding a finding in its Nobel Peace Prize-winning 2007 report that glaciers in India were rapidly disappearing. It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of patient observation and research but anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student’s master’s thesis. IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri knew about the erroneous information before December’s Copenhagen climate summit but maintained the falsehood. He even denounced a report from India that showed the glaciers were in far less jeopardy as “unsubstantiated research.” Last month, Mr. Pachauri published a sexually explicit novel, further diminishing his professional reputation.

EDITORIAL: Osama and Obama on global warming - Washington Times
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:10 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,057,165 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Now Ad homs.

If you cannot beat them with evidence and logic the next stop is logical fallacy. Should we expect strawmen next?

I am published scientist myself. Not in this field but a much more closely related one that your physics prof. Unless you are claiming your physic prof published in this field? Please give a cite in that case.

Sorry, stupid is as stupid does.

I didn't write your comment, you did.

Your claim about peer review is absurd and anyone with any education in traditional hard sciences knows this.

If you are publishing according to what you claim peer review to be, then you are a part of the problem.

Peer review is a process of validation, verification, and replication, not a bunch of bobble heads nodding in agreement that they think they are all correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:14 AM
 
Location: the Beaver State
6,468 posts, read 11,135,694 times
Reputation: 3513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_IA View Post
The bottom line is that man-made global warming is a scam. Al Gore is the main con man and high priest of the MMGW cult.
Man... I've heard that argument before... When was that?

Oh yeah!

The "CFE" scare that was depleting the Ozone layer. I'm happy to see the holes in the Ozone are STILL growing now that CFE's have been outlawed, proving once and for all that the great anti-refridgerator and hair spray conspiracy was all a scam to make money off scaring the public with a non-existent issue.

Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:16 AM
 
15,716 posts, read 13,130,937 times
Reputation: 19622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Hansen « Climate Audit

McIntyre is a mathematician and his objections to Hansen's work have been numerous. He even published work to which specifically showed Hansen's "1998 warmest year" claim to be sloppy application of mathematical methods.

You talk about "that isn't how science works", yet you dismiss the fact that Hansen does not practice science, he practices politics. He is an activist first, scientist second and it has been shown repeatedly.

Science is a process of verification, validation, and replication. It is not a position of reputation, politicization, and social agreement to which the position of CAGW attempts to reside in.

A mathematician is qualified to make an assessment of the math. A physics is qualified to make an evaluation of the physics applied.

The problem began when Hansen refused to release his data and methodology to McIntyre when he requested it, because McIntyre could not replicate his work based on Hansen's claims. Eventually he was able to replicate it, but the replication was not borne of proper mathematical process, rather it was established using poorly constructed practices to which are not used in proper mathematical evaluation. That is when he found that Hansen was applying such invalid methodology.

Problem is, they disregarded him, ridiculed him, attacked him and even created a politically motivated site (RealClimate.org) specifically designed to attack McIntyre's work through dismissal and devious evaluation.

In the end, McIntyre was right and NASA retracted Hansen's claim.

Now none of this would be an issue if Hansen (as well as many other researchers in government agencies) would have simply released their data (as is required of public institutions) and openly accepted evaluations of issues with their research (as is normal of a scientist). He however is a political lackey, pushing political motive. That is a fact and his long list of arrest records and public states of political activism show.

He isn't a scientist, he is a mockery of science and this is exactly what the petition is complaining about.
The fact that you think the sum of climate change studies ends and begins with someone named Hansen shows a lack of understanding of scope and magnitude.

Personally I have no idea who Hansen is. Lets take anything he has published out of the equation. Is there still a scientific consensus on climate change? Yes.


Lets also look at Steven McIntyre shall we? He is a mining prospector. Definitely no conflict of interest there.

Anyway, he corrected a mistake in the production of a single graph. OK. In the peer review process a group of scientists caught the mistake of another scientist. How is that anything but conformation that peer review works? How does one single mistake prove that all of the science is wrong?

What other papers besides that one did McIntyre write? What original research refuting climate change did he publish?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:17 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,057,165 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamellr View Post
Man... I've heard that argument before... When was that?

Oh yeah!

The "CFE" scare that was depleting the Ozone layer. I'm happy to see the holes in the Ozone are STILL growing now that CFE's have been outlawed, proving once and for all that the great anti-refridgerator and hair spray conspiracy was all a scam to make money off scaring the public with a non-existent issue.

Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?
Of the top of my head, I think I remember reading about the fact that the "holes" actually grow and shrink due to natural occurrences. The position of man causing them I think is now relegated to that of the fringe positions as the science doesn't support that previous belief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:21 AM
 
15,716 posts, read 13,130,937 times
Reputation: 19622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Sorry, stupid is as stupid does.

I didn't write your comment, you did.

Your claim about peer review is absurd and anyone with any education in traditional hard sciences knows this.

If you are publishing according to what you claim peer review to be, then you are a part of the problem.

Peer review is a process of validation, verification, and replication, not a bunch of bobble heads nodding in agreement that they think they are all correct.
Hard science? Oh jeez.

I have a degree in chemical oceanography. It is a hard science, as is climatology BTW.

Apparently you are not aware what consensus means:

con·sen·sus

   [kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA
noun, plural con·sen·sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

Peer review is a consensus that a particular paper is worthy of publication by the review committee.

It is sad that you are unaware of that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:30 AM
 
15,693 posts, read 8,520,058 times
Reputation: 6179
Peer review according to Michael Mann, Phil Jones et al:

1. Do NOT let any skeptic publish in a peer review journal.
2. IF an editor lets a paper thru that does not toe the party line, get the guy fired
3. For all papers that are pro-CAGW, insure all reviewers are on board with the CAGW view

THIS is what passes for “Peer review” in the Climate Change Community.

It really bothers me when people talk about the IPCC as though it was an unbiased scientific document.

It isn’t
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2012, 09:33 AM
 
15,693 posts, read 8,520,058 times
Reputation: 6179
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
Maybe you quoted the wrong post but I did not say anything that you put in quotes in your post.
yes you did. post two in this thread.
here is your quote. I copied and pasted

Walter Cunningham, has a BA in physics, hardly makes him an expert in the field yet he has become the voice of the AGW movement. Where are the papers he has published? The peer review?
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:04 AM.

© 2005-2018, 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, 33, 34, 35 - Top