Global Warming Literacy Test (activist, layman, bias, claims)
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.
That is the problem, you trust in "authority", not in science. If you trusted in science, you wouldn't dismiss legitimate points made about the lacking in CAGW, nor would you proclaim models as evidence of anything.
If you were right, there would be no need for any sort of review process. We'd just say "they're climatologists so they're must be right". Scientific journals would be free to publish whatever they like. Accuracy wouldn't matter, because no one would be examining work, reading about experiments and trying to reproduce results, all that good sciency stuff that scientists do and weathermen with blogs don't. If you were right, journals would be much like your laughable weatherman's blog, in fact.
If you were right, there would be no need for any sort of review process. We'd just say "they're climatologists so they're must be right". Scientific journals would be free to publish whatever they like. Accuracy wouldn't matter, because no one would be examining work, reading about experiments and trying to reproduce results, all that good sciency stuff that scientists do and weathermen with blogs don't. If you were right, journals would be much like your laughable weatherman's blog, in fact.
where CAGW is concerned there are a number of publications that have followed strange policy.
like not allowing papers that take a skeptical view regardless of the quailty of the science in the paper, allowing submitters to know the reviewers, allowing reviewers to know who the subitter is, and even insuring the reviewers are friendly and supporters of the submitter.
We have hard evidence from the leaked emails that scientist forced the resignation of editors that allowed publication of contrarian views. So in fact, where CAGW is concerned there pretty much has not been a review process, journals are free to publish whatever they like and Acuracy does not matter.
The recent Cook et al 2013 stands as proof.
But we could go back a half dozen years and look at Keith Briffa's single tree in Yamal and further proove that the lack of real review has been a long standing reality in the CAGW field.
you can pretend Peer Review means the same thing to Climatology as it does in the field of Physics but a growing number of us know that simply is not the truth.
If you were right, there would be no need for any sort of review process. We'd just say "they're climatologists so they're must be right". Scientific journals would be free to publish whatever they like. Accuracy wouldn't matter, because no one would be examining work, reading about experiments and trying to reproduce results, all that good sciency stuff that scientists do and weathermen with blogs don't. If you were right, journals would be much like your laughable weatherman's blog, in fact.
You ever notice that science journals have retractions?
Why is that? If the process is so robust, so... infallible, then why do they ever retract a published paper?
Care to answer that one?
Also, are you aware of the climategate emails? Did you read the ones where they were putting pressure on journals to publish CAGW research and restrict any research that did not support it? Didn't read that? You do realize that they do not deny those emails, they argue "context", which... by the way was supplied in later climategate email releases. That is, the "out of context" claims were not "out of context".
But hey, what they did was not "illegal", rather it was unethical. So, no crime committed, no harm no foul right? See, you can go on about how I am using a "blog" (cleverly refusing to deal with the content of a given response within it, or the fact that those who are writing the articles on that "blog" are often climate scientists) and hope that you can dismiss with fallacious approaches that are nothing more than appeals to authority, but at the end of the day, you have nothing. All you have is yet another tired old plea to everyone to worship at the feet of title and position.
Good luck with that, I will stick with the science. You know, that process where you actually have to verify, validate, and replicate your claim through showing your work.
I know, I know.... take if on faith right?
Sorry, but you worship your religion like a good little fanatic, I will take the science.
I labeled you a climate change denier, but that wasn't central to my argument; if anything, it was a part of my conclusion. There's a difference.
No, they do not.
2+2 equals 4, you stupid cow. Oops, since I used "stupid cow", I guess my previous statement must be wrong, right?
Stop using the b-word as if this were some sort of politically correct ideological debate - we're referring to objective scientific data, not an ethical conundrum. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.
[/font][/color]
What are you... a 13 year old? If not, quit acting like it.
Interesting forum post of a quiz that any self educated, self righteous "climate change denier" should take.
I say this because most of you guys would horribly fail a high school honors physics test, and wouldn't even try to address any scientific question...unless if that question has political implications, in which case you suddenly, magically become experts on the matter. Suspicious?
A quiz devised by liberals, can only be answered correctly by liberals to advance a liberal agenda for liberals to show the rest of the world how smart liberals think they are.
I stopped here. All I'm interested in is new data that leads to conclusions that contradict or shore up old conclusions. I'm not interested in what right-wing conspiracy nuts think support their conspiracy. At all. You guys are the TimeCube of weather.
And don't think I'm making the mistake of saying "it's been peer reviewed, so it's perfect and right". It's not. It may well be wrong. Further research will either confirm or contradict current results, and that's what I pay attention to. But what I am saying is that "if it's not peer reviewed, there's no reason to take it seriously". OhioRules' 40 year old books that cite Reader's Digest (I'm still chuckling at that) are not peer reviewed, that ex-weatherman's blog is not peer reviewed. Nothing the right ever produces as so-called "proof" is ever, ever on a par with actual science. And if it should be, it won't provide the "A ha! Climate change is a fraud!" silver bullet the person citing it will claim it does. Why pretend otherwise? The right lacks credibility in the academic sense in this matter. Sorry. Right wingers who understand this (I know some) shake their heads at what their party has become.
The reason I discount that blog is because I have no idea if the guy is lying, using outdated information, or coming up with gotchas that have long since been thought of and discounted. Maybe the author's well meaning, or maybe he just hates Al Gore. What I am certain of is that ex-weathermen aren't generally well versed in what it takes to be climatologists, and (this is important) no one is making sure this guy's no exception. For all I know that's Nomander's own blog and he's quoting himself. If you want to show something is scientifically sound, you have to do better than "here's this blog and what the guy says sounds good to me".
If I were a right-winger and I wanted to stick it to those socialist left-wing pansies, and if I was as sure the facts were on my side as the right seems to be, these threads would read like the index to Journal of Climate or something. I'd use something real, not 40 year old poorly researched pop-sci books and blogs of weathermen.
You ever notice that science journals have retractions?
Yes.
Quote:
Why is that? If the process is so robust, so... infallible, then why do they ever retract a published paper?
Retracting mistakes is part of that robust process (nothing's infallible).
Quote:
Care to answer that one?
Sure. One explanation is that scientists are people, and people make errors. That's why scientists revisit old experiments, devise new theories that, if valid, would explain discrepancies old theories can't, come up with new experiments that would reveal flaws or fill in gaps in previous experiments. This is how science works.
Quote:
Also, are you aware of the climategate emails?
The stolen ones? Yes.
Quote:
Did you read the ones where they were putting pressure on journals to publish CAGW research and restrict any research that did not support it? Didn't read that? You do realize that they do not deny those emails, they argue "context", which... by the way was supplied in later climategate email releases. That is, the "out of context" claims were not "out of context".
Yeah, they were. Two guys were saying that some journal had been taken over by a crank and they should no longer have anything to do with it.
Those who care can read about this wearisome nonsense here
Quote:
But hey, what they did was not "illegal", rather it was unethical. So, no crime committed, no harm no foul right? See, you can go on about how I am using a "blog" (cleverly refusing to deal with the content of a given response within it, or the fact that those who are writing the articles on that "blog" are often climate scientists) and hope that you can dismiss with fallacious approaches that are nothing more than appeals to authority, but at the end of the day, you have nothing. All you have is yet another tired old plea to everyone to worship at the feet of title and position.
No, I just want you to show your claims have scientific merit. And I wish you would, too. I stand only to gain from a blossoming oil industry. It would be good to be wrong about all this. Anyway, a blog you like isn't good enough. That your distrust of scientists leads you to insist a blog that tells you what you want to hear is just as good as the real thing isn't my problem.
Quote:
Sorry, but you worship your religion like a good little fanatic, I will take the science.
That's the sad part: you don't even know you're wrong.
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.
