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.
Personal biases are worked out over time. That's what the scientific process does.
.
No, not really.
Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.
The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.
Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.
The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.
As I said, the scientific process weeds out bias over time. These are good examples, if true. They got found and purged. There are other journals. You think the great break throughs always come from Harvard or other conservative universities?
It's clear you've staked out a position against science on this and see part of your radical identity in it. So, it's not worth discussing.
You and your cohort have yet to prove this grand global conspiracy. All you've said is it's government so it must be bad, which isn't true. Business can be just as corrupt. No sense in hitching your horse to either post. Just seek the truth through the process we have to do that
It's the same scientific process and funding that's made every scientific breakthrough in modern history.
You honestly have no idea how many different data sets are used. How many different fields are showing a warming planet. How many thousands of studies from different funding, including private foundations and Koch brothers show humans warming the planet.
You believe there's a little group of people hording a few data sets, and it's just not true. The scientific process works out bias over time. The scientific organziations thatvhave concluded a warming planet, which is all the major ones, would lose everything if they were cooking the books.
Anyway - who do you want funding non-commercial science? Obviously, industry is far more incentivized to cook their books.
You just seem to have a general distrust without any evidence. No one's proven this grand, global conspiracy you all keep talking about. I've asked several times now.
No. I am trained in Physics. I fully understand evidence and the scientific method.
I distrust a part of the scientific community that has become HEAVILY politicized and incentivized by government grants that are predicated on a presupposed conclusion.
I distrust conclusions drawn from massaged data (AKA "corrected" data) used in incomplete models that make calculations with far fewer variables than actually exist. Especially when there is an effort to keep the data alteration methods under wraps.
I distrust a claim that temps have increased 0.x degrees when that value is well within the margin of error.
We, as responsible agents, should do what we can reasonably do to reduce pollution, etc... Nobody is opposed to that. But politicizing science to achieve this is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA... Yet that is precisely what has happened.
Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.
The peer review system has decayed to the point where the culture of the two “top” science journals virtually guarantees they will reject the most important research done today. It is the exact opposite of what we need to further human knowledge the fastest. Science and Nature are prestigious journals, yet they are now so conservative about ideas that challenge dominant assumptions, that they reject ground-breaking papers because those papers challenge the dominant meme, not because the evidence or the reasoning is suspect or weak.
No. I am trained in Physics. I fully understand evidence and the scientific method.
I distrust a part of the scientific community that has become HEAVILY politicized and incentivized by government grants that are predicated on a presupposed conclusion.
I distrust conclusions drawn from massaged data (AKA "corrected" data) used in incomplete models that make calculations with far fewer variables than actually exist. Especially when there is an effort to keep the data alteration methods under wraps.
I distrust a claim that temps have increased 0.x degrees when that value is well within the margin of error.
We, as responsible agents, should do what we can reasonably do to reduce pollution, etc... Nobody is opposed to that. But politicizing science to achieve this is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA... Yet that is precisely what has happened.
It's become politicized because it will take legislation to enact meaningful environmental change. Furthermore, this isn't an issue that just keep being put off. Decisions have to be made without the best and complete information all the time outside academia.
No. I am trained in Physics. I fully understand evidence and the scientific method.
I distrust a part of the scientific community that has become HEAVILY politicized and incentivized by government grants that are predicated on a presupposed conclusion.
I distrust conclusions drawn from massaged data (AKA "corrected" data) used in incomplete models that make calculations with far fewer variables than actually exist. Especially when there is an effort to keep the data alteration methods under wraps.
I distrust a claim that temps have increased 0.x degrees when that value is well within the margin of error.
We, as responsible agents, should do what we can reasonably do to reduce pollution, etc... Nobody is opposed to that. But politicizing science to achieve this is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA... Yet that is precisely what has happened.
There's so much more research in diverse fields that show a warming planet - oceanography to wildlife biology to Botany.
It's time to let the anger go and shift to solutions that don't involve heavy taxation.
So wait - you actually think continents drifting is still a thing? You realize the continents aren't floating islands like in a cartoon, right? The movement of continents is from the shifting of tectonic plates.
Continental drift is the expression of plate tectonics. You said it was disproven.
Continental drift is the expression of plate tectonics. You said it was disproven.
Well, it's semantics but plate tectonics is the more accurate modern term because people did used to think continents were literally drifting.
As ol' wiki says, "The idea of continental drift has been subsumed by the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the continents move."
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.
