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.
Scientists are exposed to mandatory peer-review. It's time people quit pretending it's just a bunch of people making up stuff as they go.
Think about this, no international scientific body, not one has opposed the global warming theory. Some have decided to remain neutral on the matter, but none of them openly oppose it with hard facts and research.
There has been a few individuals out there who have been very vocal against the theory of man-made climate change, but these people represent no one but themselves and you will find that they are often outside their field of expertise, hired to provide an opposing view on TV, a very loud one.
That said, while global warming cannot be denied, unless you can disprove the current theory, it has been hijacked by a whole range of people. Obscurantist idiots on the right who like to mock it or opportunistic pricks on the left who use it to either push their agenda and/or make money off of it. The conversation has now reach complete retardation.
For some reason, both completly miss the point about it. The ones who deny it say the earth is not on fire because we had some cold weather somewhere (wow, what a disproof) and the ones who support it tend to make an apocalyptic scenario out of it.
Not one scientist claimed the Earth would melt but that increasing climate could affect some regions agriculture, or some more flooding elsewhere, or some draught there...problems popping up here and there that on our already overpopulated planet will generate instability and insecurity.
That's the problem with global warming, not some kind of childish scenario of people microwaved. Now I wish that the people unfit to debate the veracity of it would stop opening their mouth. And I wished eco-friendly people would stop exagarating.
Anyway, even without global warming, there are already a lot of elephants in the room when it comes to ecologic issues so minimizing human impacts on nature and improving our consumptions habit can only have benefits.
Scientists are exposed to mandatory peer-review. It's time people quit pretending it's just a bunch of people making up stuff as they go.
Think about this, no international scientific body, not one has opposed the global warming theory. Some have decided to remain neutral on the matter, but none of them openly oppose it with hard facts and research.
There has been a few individuals out there who have been very vocal against the theory of man-made climate change, but these people represent no one but themselves and you will find that they are often outside their field of expertise, hired to provide an opposing view on TV, a very loud one.
That said, while global warming cannot be denied, unless you can disprove the current theory, it has been hijacked by a whole range of people. Obscurantist idiots on the right who like to mock it or opportunistic pricks on the left who use it to either push their agenda and/or make money off of it. The conversation has now reach complete retardation.
For some reason, both completly miss the point about it. The ones who deny it say the earth is not on fire because we had some cold weather somewhere (wow, what a disproof) and the ones who support it tend to make an apocalyptic scenario out of it.
Not one scientist claimed the Earth would melt but that increasing climate could affect some regions agriculture, or some more flooding elsewhere, or some draught there...problems popping up here and there that on our already overpopulated planet will generate instability and insecurity.
That's the problem with global warming, not some kind of childish scenario of people microwaved. Now I wish that the people unfit to debate the veracity of it would stop opening their mouth. And I wished eco-friendly people would stop exagarating.
Anyway, even without global warming, there are already a lot of elephants in the room when it comes to ecologic issues so minimizing human impacts on nature and improving our consumptions habit can only have benefits.
I don’t entirely disagree with you oh Chin of the Great One.... but when you really look at what has passed as peer review it is scandalous.
When asked by actual real scientists to pretty please provide original date related to land temperatures Phil Jones the Godfather of AGW, said "why should I you are just gonna try to disprove everything"
well duh! Thats the point of peer review!
The fact is, there is very little real peer review of the stuff coming from the AGW crowd.
Keith Briffa produces a hockey stick and gets Michael Mann and TJ Osborn to slap him on the back and it gets called “Peer Review”
Let’s not even try to delve into the fact that these guys are using the same data to create their own papers and then get each other to do the back slap thingy that passes as AGW peer review.
But then along comes a guy with a penchant for statistics and Mr. Briffas work unravels when his entire palio-climatology record is based on a single tree in some remote place in Russia called Yamal.
But Mr. Statistician is a retired energy sector guy who isn’t a PhD and so he is some crazy guy with a computer (lets all ignore the fact that he is right)…. THIS isn’t peer review. NOOOOO this is just a crazy guy paid by the wrong payers and so even if he is right, he is wrong…. Because he isn’t a peer and thus cannot review….
THIS is very much part of the problem. (the above really has happened)
Scientists are exposed to mandatory peer-review. It's time people quit pretending it's just a bunch of people making up stuff as they go.
Yes, but the process in the climate science field is severely flawed as is shown with the numerous issues with the IPCC's reports as well as the noted details of the behavior and actions of key researchers and organizations in the climate emails.
My issue is not that they are "making it up", though... this point could be argued if you looked closely at some of the literature used as support in the IPCC's report, but rather that they are allowing bias to motivate their conclusions be it malicious or honest. this is noted in many reports that over emphasize the issue, summarize data selectively, or through poor methodology obtain results that are invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
Think about this, no international scientific body, not one has opposed the global warming theory. Some have decided to remain neutral on the matter, but none of them openly oppose it with hard facts and research.
There has been a few individuals out there who have been very vocal against the theory of man-made climate change, but these people represent no one but themselves and you will find that they are often outside their field of expertise, hired to provide an opposing view on TV, a very loud one.
Here is the core of the problem. Define "global warming"? What is it? What is "climate change" and what does it mean when a scientists says he "believes" man has an effect on it? Also, is their position based on validated evidence or hypothesized opinion? Belief is simply an unproven hypothesis and no scientist will claim they have proof (unless their evidence has extreme flaws and those who do so are in MAJOR question currently), rather they will show trends, predictions, and various other related evidence that they claim "suggests" such, but even then they are not sure to any "scientifically" concluded position. Its simply a informal opinion and add in the complexity of the question and you see those that administrations line up as "certain" begin to differ between each other on aspects of significance right down to relevance of assessment.
Many who are upset (those skeptics you see such as McIntyre, Watts (who believes in AGW by the way), Piekle JR and SR, etc... ) are upset at the extremely poor manner to which these "organizations" and "administrations" have been behaving when it concerns scientific process. One need only read the AR4 review comments to see the bickering and immature behavior of some.
Yes, there are political positions pushing against AGW, but there is a lot of political positions pushing for AGW. Those who are being ignored here are the ones in the middle who are just trying to do the science and are kicked under the rug if they don't appeal to either side completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
That said, while global warming cannot be denied, unless you can disprove the current theory, it has been hijacked by a whole range of people. Obscurantist idiots on the right who like to mock it or opportunistic pricks on the left who use it to either push their agenda and/or make money off of it. The conversation has now reach complete retardation.
I think few deny global warming specifically, rather they contest the evidence that suggests by how much, its significance and what is the major contributing factor. Though again, this gets shoved under the carpet by political agenda and it doesn't help when those who are in charge of the key positions and administrations have acted strongly in political ways often at odds with the scientific process (Jones, Mann, Briffa, Hansen, NASA, MET office, etc...)
So I assume it bothered you when AGW supporters act such a way? Or are you saying all of the behavior from both official and unofficial positions on the issue have been tempered, respectful, and professional? You know that is a complete crock do you not? There is poor actions on both sides, but the issue here is that there have been honest research, audits, questions, and errors found in the research to which it was met with nothing more than childish attacks, dismissals, and venomous scorn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
For some reason, both completly miss the point about it. The ones who deny it say the earth is not on fire because we had some cold weather somewhere (wow, what a disproof) and the ones who support it tend to make an apocalyptic scenario out of it.
Weather is not climate, sure... but then keep in mind weather has been used many times to claim support for the AGW position and at times by people and organizations you think would know better. So when they say "weather is not climate" and then turn around and point to "weather as climate", it stinks like 3 day old fish.
What should be happening is that politics, the media, and agenda driven idiots should back off and let the science do its work. Though that was kind of hard considering it was people like Jones, Mann, and Hansen who brought this to the political realm (Where do you think Gore got all his research from? Hansen was his side kick when he first started his agenda)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
Not one scientist claimed the Earth would melt but that increasing climate could affect some regions agriculture, or some more flooding elsewhere, or some draught there...problems popping up here and there that on our already overpopulated planet will generate instability and insecurity.
Yes, but are these problems significant in occurrence or simply, another day on planet earth? They can barely find support for their hypothesis without playing the shell game, much less come up with any solution to deal with this problem they claim. I saw an article about Bill Gates who has ideas for special ships that will convert salt water into clouds and all kinds of other technologies they are trying to come up with to fight an issue they can't even fully explain. A person might be good with a computer, but if they do not understand all the things they are changing, it usually ends up with a machine that isn't working. Now take that concept and apply it to the earth. It is foolish to make decisions on partial information and that is true for just about anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
That's the problem with global warming, not some kind of childish scenario of people microwaved. Now I wish that the people unfit to debate the veracity of it would stop opening their mouth. And I wished eco-friendly people would stop exagarating.
How about all those who are uninformed simply stop opening their mouth, or take a position that asks more questions of those who do than coming to conclusions? I certainly would appreciate more people either responding with "I am unsure" or "I don't know enough about that" than hearing them prattle off the one liners and extreme insults. Calling someone a liberal nut is just as bad as mouthing off "denier" and playing the position of smug arrogance. Both are unfit to comment on the topic, though the problem is they really never comment on it with any measure and spend most of their time attacking for their agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
Anyway, even without global warming, there are already a lot of elephants in the room when it comes to ecologic issues so minimizing human impacts on nature and improving our consumptions habit can only have benefits.
Sure, but then please do not take my response negatively, but that is a talking point defense. Few would argue that we would benefit from being cleaner, more efficient, etc...
The problem is with how that is to be obtained and the information driving it. There is no benefit in collapsing an economy and limiting individual freedoms to chase unicorns in the meadow. The issue is not being used to actually promote good, it is used to obtain profit and power. People are using this at all levels to push their personal agenda, to profit, and to demand conformity to their opinion, often in the face of the facts which is why the issue always ends up in politics and cleverly avoids the details of the science.
I don’t entirely disagree with you oh Chin of the Great One.... but when you really look at what has passed as peer review it is scandalous.
When asked by actual real scientists to pretty please provide original date related to land temperatures Phil Jones the Godfather of AGW, said "why should I you are just gonna try to disprove everything"
well duh! Thats the point of peer review!
The fact is, there is very little real peer review of the stuff coming from the AGW crowd.
Keith Briffa produces a hockey stick and gets Michael Mann and TJ Osborn to slap him on the back and it gets called “Peer Review”
Let’s not even try to delve into the fact that these guys are using the same data to create their own papers and then get each other to do the back slap thingy that passes as AGW peer review.
But then along comes a guy with a penchant for statistics and Mr. Briffas work unravels when his entire palio-climatology record is based on a single tree in some remote place in Russia called Yamal.
But Mr. Statistician is a retired energy sector guy who isn’t a PhD and so he is some crazy guy with a computer (lets all ignore the fact that he is right)…. THIS isn’t peer review. NOOOOO this is just a crazy guy paid by the wrong payers and so even if he is right, he is wrong…. Because he isn’t a peer and thus cannot review….
THIS is very much part of the problem. (the above really has happened)
The other side of peer review is for all the hoaxers to collaborate on excluding contradictory data from being included in the process. Getting rid of the data from the Medieval warming period, for example.
Please note how the human caused global warming proponents have subtly dropped the 'human caused' and now just refer to global warming.
This is because they are lsoing traction with the public. They use creative interpretations of scientific data and claim their findings are absolute irrefutable 'science'.
In a way they are winning as every state, at least NJ, has incorporated the hcgw principles into law. This legal acceptance of HCGW now covertly drives the regulatory and economic activities in all our states. Most don't even know the EPA radicals and activists have infiltrated our laws while the consensus is that HCGW is a political and economic strategy to promote a political agenda.
The earth has been cooling and heating, glaciers growing and retreating since the earth was formed. There is no news here except for the lesson not learned and the egocentric attitude of humans with regard to nature. Of course the premise is that humans are separate from nature and dominate it. A GOD like attitude that still plagues the earth.
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.