Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-23-2014, 06:08 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,728,778 times
Reputation: 9325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams View Post
It doesn't require a Ph.D. in meteorology to notice that the Earth's climate is changing. I am not liberal and even I can admit that there is some crazy S. going on. Now whether or not humans are the main cause is debatable, but something is definitely changing. Without a stable Earth... securing the borders doesn't really matter.
Yes, climate is changing. It always has and always will. It has never been stable.

 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,728,778 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon View Post
Is this your best effort? More insults about being a "flat-earther" if you disagree with the AGW dogma?
You keep mentioning the peer review process yet that has been shown to be politicized and corrupt time and time again.

Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted,” “completely corrupt,” and “simply a regression to the mean” I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."
Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted,” “completely corrupt,” and “simply a regression to the mean” | Retraction Watch

“We need to get away from the notion, proven wrong on a daily basis, that peer review of any kind at any journal means that a work of science is correct. What it means is that a few (1-4) people read it over and didn’t see any major problems. That’s a very low bar in even the best of circumstances.”
Wall Street Journal op-ed:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.
Peer review is kinda like Hollywood voting on the Emmys. They are quite important to Hollywood, not so much to the rest of us.
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,728,778 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by voiceofreazon View Post
“We need to get away from the notion, proven wrong on a daily basis, that peer review of any kind at any journal means that a work of science is correct. What it means is that a few (1-4) people read it over and didn’t see any major problems. That’s a very low bar in even the best of circumstances.”
Wall Street Journal op-ed:
More from your link;

"The old model of subscriptions is no longer viable, since government has taken control of academic research...."

And then people wonder why "academic research" supports bigger and bigger government. Follow the money.
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,521 posts, read 37,121,123 times
Reputation: 13998
For a guy who doesn't care about global warming, you seem almost obsessed with it.

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,728,778 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
And who pays these scientists salaries? They don't work for free.

BTW, you cannot peer review these studies from the ground up because they destroyed the original data. They can only review the studies using massaged data.

Last edited by Roadking2003; 10-23-2014 at 07:28 AM..
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:42 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,212,564 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
And I found this....Do you also think the earth is flat? The Flat Earth Society

John Coleman has not published peer-reviewed research on climate change.
He has written numerous newspaper and blog articles skeptical of global warming.

So is this your best effort?
I listen to the scientists who said it stopped warming 18 years ago.
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:43 AM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,212,564 times
Reputation: 12102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams View Post
It doesn't require a Ph.D. in meteorology to notice that the Earth's climate is changing. I am not liberal and even I can admit that there is some crazy S. going on. Now whether or not humans are the main cause is debatable, but something is definitely changing. Without a stable Earth... securing the borders doesn't really matter.
Stable earth?

Species adapt to the changing climate all the time or they die.

Been happening since the first bit of ooze started walking.
 
Old 10-23-2014, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,847,737 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Stable earth?

Species adapt to the changing climate all the time or they die.

Been happening since the first bit of ooze started walking.
It's just that our species, well most of it, don't think we should speed up the process..
 
Old 10-23-2014, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,728,778 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
It's just that our species, well most of it, don't think we should speed up the process..
I agree.
 
Old 10-23-2014, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,521 posts, read 37,121,123 times
Reputation: 13998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
And who pays these scientists salaries? They don't work for free.

BTW, you cannot peer review these studies from the ground up because they destroyed the original data. They can only review the studies using massaged data.
You mean like this? Rewriting The Science - CBS News I seriously doubt that scientists destroy their studies....Prove me 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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:52 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top