Climategate

1123124126128129153

Comments

  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    A forum also has an ignore feature. Which I am now employing in your case. Good day.



    'Good day'!







    And a happy 1899 to you, too, my good sir!



    Remember: If you run into someone articulate and patient enough to explain to you things you don't like in a way that they become unavoidable, do what I do: simply pretend that Victoria is still Queen of England and ignore it.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    MJ with more permabans around here than anyone is obviously the clear master of forum etiquette.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    MJ with more permabans around here than anyone is obviously the clear master of forum etiquette.







    Indeed. I wonder why I even tried to engage in discussion with him.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member


    jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues. I used to be a skeptic about the truth about Global Warming, however the accumulating amount of evidence makes it clear that man has had an impact upon Global Warming. While it is true that climate is cyclic, you can't deny from even the information that you posted that man has increased the intensity of climate change. We cannot deny the amount of carbon emissions and of other green house gases have increased through man's activities.



    What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.



    I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.



    Watts Up With That does not support many of his conclusions. I have been able to find science that disputes many of his claims. If you read the articles that are supported with data and are supported by other researchers, you should realize that Watt's science is flawed.







    Climate Crock of the Week: What's Up With Anthony Watts [take 2]

    Kevin GrandiaManaging editor

    Posted: July 29, 2009 12:12 AM



    Quote:

    Okay, let's try this again.



    Peter Sinclair, producer of the well-known "Climate Crock of the Week" video series, posted a video debunking weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs a Climate Denier Den also known as his Watt's Up With That blog.



    The video was auto-scrubbed by YouTube after Watts claimed the video broke YouTube's copyright rules. The video has since been reviewed by a number of US copyright experts and (big surprise) there appears to be nothing that could be construed as anything but fair use.



    This whole situation has raised the ire of even some of the more ardent commenters on DeSmogBlog (the site I manage) who normally disagree with pretty much everything we say on the site. One such commenter, Rick James wrote:



    Quote:

    "I have to admit it doesn't look good for the skeptic side when something gets scrubbed like this. Watts loses some stature here unless he can post something convincing about why he did it on his blog. Silence won't get it done."



    One could speculate that Watts had a problem with the clips Sinclair used of Watts being interviewed by Glenn Beck on Fox News (Watts formerly worked as a weatherman for a Fox News affiliate), but that would be pretty weak given that Watts has no problem excerpting large swaths of print articles like this one posted tonight from the BBC on his own website.



    As I have asked on two posts here on Huffington Post and on DeSmog: tell me Mr. Watts, what part of this video is it that gives you the right to have it removed from the public discourse on climate change? You can email me at desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com.



    Here's the video again, reposted on YouTube:



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-..._b_246712.html





    WATTS UP--DEBUNKED
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    That's nice.



    START A F[LO]CKING BLOG.



    If you want a propganda aggregator, START A BLOG. Fine Tunes just debunks this sh[!]t remorselessly every time and you never bother to respond. So just START A BLOG AND TURN THE COMMENTS OFF.



    Sorry MJ, had to clean it up---who knows if kids are reading this.----Thanks for reading mine--was wondering if any one was reading my post.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    More profanity? [EDITS BY FT]



    TITS 1. A titmouse.

    2. Any of various small, similar or related birds.

    adj. New England & Upstate New York

    Small; undersized.

    With these definitions this word cannot be construed as profanity



    BALLS pl of ball def

    ?noun

    1.

    a spherical or approximately spherical body or shape; sphere: He rolled the piece of paper into a ball.

    2.

    a round or roundish body, of various sizes and materials, either hollow or solid, for use in games, as baseball, football, tennis, or golf.

    3.

    a game played with a ball, esp. baseball: The boys are out playing ball.

    Again, not necessarily profanity.



    ANUS n. pl. a·nus·es

    The opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste is eliminated from the body. Also called anal orifice, fundament.



    This is a medical or biological term, so how can this be profane?



    BOLLOCKS pl n

    1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Anatomy) another word for testicles

    2. nonsense; rubbish

    interj

    1. an exclamation of annoyance, disbelief, etc

    the (dog's) bollocks something excellent

    vb (usually foll by up)

    to muddle or botch



    Again, not necessarily profane.



    TWATS---now that's vulgar---can't reprint the def here--there might be kids reading this.



    START A F[RI]CKING BLOG.



    This is not your blog. This is a forum. If you want a climate denier aggregator, start your own climate denier aggregator and stop bumping this thread with [equine poop] from climate denial blogs. Fine Tunes debunks it and you ignore him again and again, so you don't want to discuss, you just want to post, so you should start a blog. That's what you should do.



    Sorry MJ you have to remember that children might be reading this.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Sorry MJ you have to remember that children might be reading this.



    True. I'll edit them when I get the chance.



    Can't help but notice that jazzguru didn't bother to respond to your posts, again



    He really should start a blog.
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    So true. He isn't looking for conversation anywhere. Challenge his beliefs? He puts his head in the sand. He's not worth talking to.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    I have made appropriate edits to the potty-mouthed incarnations of my previous posts.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    I have made appropriate edits to the potty-mouthed incarnations of my previous posts.



    Thank you MJ, the parents of the kids who might read this thank you for the edits.

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues. I used to be a skeptic about the truth about Global Warming, however the accumulating amount of evidence makes it clear that man has had an impact upon Global Warming. While it is true that climate is cyclic, you can't deny from even the information that you posted that man has increased the intensity of climate change. We cannot deny the amount of carbon emissions and of other green house gases have increased through man's activities.



    What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.



    I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.



    FineTunes, I totally respect your opinion and I do understand where you are coming from, here.



    Regarding Watts, attempts have been made to discredit just about anyone and everyone who is asking questions and expressing skepticism regarding the beliefs of the anthropogenic global warming alarmists. Watts is no exception. Discredit the person asking the questions and challenging the AGW alarmist claims and everything he/she says is irrelevant, right?



    Wrong.



    I don't care who is asking the questions or why they are asking them, as long as the questions get asked. That is what science is all about. And unfortunately meaningful debate on the issue of AGW has been largely avoided and shut down by the AGW alarmists.



    We're hearing things like "the science is settled" and "consensus" and that no further debate is required, when the reality is quite the opposite. If there's anything I've learned as I've looked into this for myself, it's that the more we know about the earth's climate, the more we know we don't know.



    Of course man has an impact. I have never claimed otherwise. Where we disagree is the extent of the impact, what action is required to mitigate that impact (if any action is required at all), and to what extent governments should be involved in that action.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues.



    FT, why would you engage in a the logical fallacy of shooting the messenger? Some complaint about YouTube improperly enforcing copyright claims in no form or fashion invalidates scientific claims. Nor does "consensus" or any of the other diversionary measures attempted. Perhaps if proper counterpoints were put forward, they would be addressed, but seriously, your claim here amounts to, a website made a video about another website, and the one guy we give some cred to on that website that attempts to refute that other website still said the removal of the video we made was a bunch of nonsense.



    Um.... actually all that stuff is the nonsense and none of it is science.



    Quote:

    What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.



    First words have definitions and when you change those definitions, there has to be good cause and when there isn't, you have to be skeptical and truly investigate the claims.



    Now most people readily admit that there are things we produce that are pollutants. They are not natural. They are synthetic and they have negative effects on the natural actions within this planet. However carbon dioxide is a natural part of the environment. It is not artificial. The same criteria that is used to justify it as a pollutant would also make water vapor from hydrogen cars a pollutant. That criteria is, we think there was this much in the air before we started doing this. There is more now. We are using some form or proto-science to project an outcome related to that difference, and now that difference and what causes it are bad.



    FYI, we do call oil based fuels HYDROCARBONS and I've never once heard anyone attempt to deal with all the water we put into the air related to the use of it. This becomes even more interesting when you see most global warming models ignoring or dealing badly with water vapor.



    I seldom wander into these things but take a look here.



    Common properties of hydrocarbons are the facts that they produce steam, carbon dioxide and heat during combustion and that oxygen is required for combustion to take place. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, burns as follows:



    CH4 + 2 O2 → 2 H2O + CO2 + EnergyAnother example of this property is propane:



    C3H8 + 5 O2 → 4 H2O + 3 CO2 + Energy

    CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 → (n+1) H2O + n CO2 + Energy





    Every gallon of fuel we burn puts water vapor into the air. It puts more water vapor into the air than it ever puts CO2 into the air. Look at almost all climate models and see what they avoid like the plague... water vapor.



    How can you give credence to something that ignores water vapor or doesn't account for it? It's well above half of the equation here.



    Quote:

    I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.



    Zero impact shouldn't be the goal. We exist and live on this planet. We are allowed to have an impact on it. The goal of environmentalism used to be to manage our resources. Now the goal is to disappear.



    Watts Up With That does not support many of his conclusions. I have been able to find science that disputes many of his claims. If you read the articles that are supported with data and are supported by other researchers, you should realize that Watt's science is flawed.[/QUOTE]



    Everything you've posted is people's opinions about whether a video should have been scrubbed from YouTube. That would be no different than me citing you on Huffington Post as proof of something. It is still hearsay. It is still opinion.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    FineTunes, I totally respect your opinion and I do understand where you are coming from, here.



    Regarding Watts, attempts have been made to discredit just about anyone and everyone who is asking questions and expressing skepticism regarding the beliefs of the anthropogenic global warming alarmists. Watts is no exception. Discredit the person asking the questions and challenging the AGW alarmist claims and everything he/she says is irrelevant, right?



    Wrong.



    I don't care who is asking the questions or why they are asking them, as long as the questions get asked. That is what science is all about. And unfortunately meaningful debate on the issue of AGW has been largely avoided and shut down by the AGW alarmists.



    First you should care who is asking the questions. Goes to credibility. If some guy dressed as Chicken Little came up to you to inform you that the sky is falling or AGW is happening---would you believe it? You have to weigh the evidence that has been presented. You weigh the sources of the information and evaluate the data, the methods used and the conclusions.



    If I can refute from credible sources most of what you have posted arguing against AGW, then I move the argument closer to proving that there is sufficient evidence to prove that AGW is true.



    Most of the sources you cite refuting the growing amount of evidence for AGW comes from few sources that are definitely biased against AGW. Most of these sources you've used are easily refutable and are not credible after being refuted time and time again. If your sources are refuted time and time again, then are they not less credible?



    I know that there are some poorly researched papers out there, but in time these papers are not accepted by the scientific community?ie peer review . But you can't use these papers to then prove that AGW research is based upon bad science without consideration of the many papers that indicate AGW is real.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    We're hearing things like "the science is settled" and "consensus" and that no further debate is required, when the reality is quite the opposite. If there's anything I've learned as I've looked into this for myself, it's that the more we know about the earth's climate, the more we know we don't know.



    Yes, the science is not totally settled yet. There are still questions of the total impact of Global Warming or Climate Change will have on the weather patterns. I have posted some papers discussing the consequences regarding the spread of tropical disease into more temperate regions. One of the things about science is that with each step taken, there are more questions raised. But as you move forward, you leave behind a growing amount of evidence and knowledge.



    The growing consensus is that AGW happening and this is being supported by a growing amount of evidence that cannot be denied.



    As I stated earlier, I used to be a skeptic, however by reviewing the amount of evidence ie scientific articles, AGW is real---it may not be all due to CO2, but definitely there's a human connection. You can include deforestation, pollution, green house gases, impacts to whole ecosystems, etc.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Of course man has an impact. I have never claimed otherwise. Where we disagree is the extent of the impact, what action is required to mitigate that impact (if any action is required at all), and to what extent governments should be involved in that action.



    Glad that we can agree that man has had an impact. What needs to be done is to lessen man's footprints on Global Warming. This can be done by drastically reducing the amount of carbon emissions, stop deforestation, lessen other impacts---if for no other reason than being good stewards and leaving to future generations a better world.



    IMHO, one of this issues that you believe is that because climate change is cyclic, the current patterns disprove that AGW is happening. One of the papers you cite is that CO2 only contributes 35% to Global Warming---don't ask me to go back to this there are over 60 pages here, but this is significant. So not all of the warming trend is due to CO2, some is due to the cyclic change, but reducing that 35% by reducing carbon emissions will reduce the amount of Global Warming. What we don't know is what are the impacts of other greenhouse gases, but reducing these will lessen any possible impacts as well.

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    With all due respect, FineTunes, you're repeating yourself. I acknowledge everything you have stated. But I disagree with you.



    I am still not convinced that CO2 is a pollutant, that it has a negative impact on climate, and that governments must take extreme measures to regulate it. There are still too many questions that have not been answered in any conclusive way.



    But note how the focus of the AGW alarmists has changed over this past decade. First, it was all about "Anthropogenic Global Warming". But reality didn't mesh with the heavily distorted computer models and IPCC predictions, warming and natural disasters didn't occur at the alarming rates predicted.



    Where are the hurricanes?



    So it was modified to "Anthropogenic Climate Change". That way, any change in climate could be included in the alarmist dogma.



    Now the new focus has shifted to "Anthropogenic Climate Disruption". This more firmly propagates the dogma that whatever impact humans are having on the earth's climate is negative. Any trend in climate whatsoever, warming, cooling, relative stagnancy, will be attributed to it.



    Extreme weather events and natural disasters are immediately attributed to "Climate Disruption" by the alarmists - as if such occurrences are unprecedented in the history of the earth.



    The heat wave in Russia this summer, for example, was immediately exploited by the alarmists as one more reason CO2 must be regulated by governments. However, it was later determined that CO2 had nothing to do with it.



    And the only "solution" proposed by the alarmists is giving governments more power to control people.



    If the science speaks for itself, why are we even talking about it? Why are there even questions about it?



    If the claims of world-wide catastrophe and devastation are true and 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, what possible incentive could there be for someone to challenge the AGW alarmist claims in the face of impending doom?



    And more importantly, why would the only solution be giving more power and control over individuals to governments?
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Are you really saying you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Seriously?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Are you really saying you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Seriously?



    No, I am not really saying that. I said I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant. Are you really saying greenhouse gases are pollutants? Seriously?
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    FT, why would you engage in a the logical fallacy of shooting the messenger? Some complaint about YouTube improperly enforcing copyright claims in no form or fashion invalidates scientific claims. Nor does "consensus" or any of the other diversionary measures attempted. Perhaps if proper counterpoints were put forward, they would be addressed, but seriously, your claim here amounts to, a website made a video about another website, and the one guy we give some cred to on that website that attempts to refute that other website still said the removal of the video we made was a bunch of nonsense.



    Um.... actually all that stuff is the nonsense and none of it is science.





    tm, Not only did I commit the logical fallacy of shooting the messenger, but I debunked and refuted some of the messages he was conveying.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    First words have definitions and when you change those definitions, there has to be good cause and when there isn't, you have to be skeptical and truly investigate the claims.



    Now most people readily admit that there are things we produce that are pollutants. They are not natural. They are synthetic and they have negative effects on the natural actions within this planet. However carbon dioxide is a natural part of the environment. It is not artificial. The same criteria that is used to justify it as a pollutant would also make water vapor from hydrogen cars a pollutant. That criteria is, we think there was this much in the air before we started doing this. There is more now. We are using some form or proto-science to project an outcome related to that difference, and now that difference and what causes it are bad.



    FYI, we do call oil based fuels HYDROCARBONS and I've never once heard anyone attempt to deal with all the water we put into the air related to the use of it. This becomes even more interesting when you see most global warming models ignoring or dealing badly with water vapor.



    I seldom wander into these things but take a look here.



    Common properties of hydrocarbons are the facts that they produce steam, carbon dioxide and heat during combustion and that oxygen is required for combustion to take place. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, burns as follows:



    CH4 + 2 O2 → 2 H2O + CO2 + EnergyAnother example of this property is propane:



    C3H8 + 5 O2 → 4 H2O + 3 CO2 + Energy

    CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 → (n+1) H2O + n CO2 + Energy





    Every gallon of fuel we burn puts water vapor into the air. It puts more water vapor into the air than it ever puts CO2 into the air. Look at almost all climate models and see what they avoid like the plague... water vapor.



    How can you give credence to something that ignores water vapor or doesn't account for it? It's well above half of the equation here.





    Thank you for the chemistry lesson, brings back good memories of my college years in Organic Chemistry. The equations you put forth happens in a perfect world? in a laboratory. Combustion in the real world of automobiles, trucks and factories is different. First O2 is only about 21% of the atmosphere. Along with the O2 component is NO2 and other nitrogen components, about 78% along with other minor gases making 1%. So you need to add in the nitrogen component into the equation. Also fuel that we burn is not pure hydrocarbons, fuel additives and impurities--that kind of stuff?the stuff that makes smog.



    Along with this you have diesel engines in trucks, ships, power generating plants, etc. that generate particulate components?ie soot that is mostly carbon---remember the article on soot sometime back in this thread?



    Also not all combustion is complete. Ever start a car on a cold morning, or is your car not tuned properly. Add in carbon monoxide and uncombusted fuel. More on combustion:



    Incomplete combustion

    Quote:

    CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O

    2 CH4 + 3 O2 → 2 CO + 4 H2O

    N2 + O2 → 2 NO

    N2 + 2 O2 → 2 NO2



    Incomplete combustion occurs when there isn't enough oxygen to allow the fuel to react completely to produce carbon dioxide and water. It also happens when the combustion is quenched by a heat sink such as a solid surface or flame trap.



    For most fuels, such as diesel oil, coal or wood, pyrolysis occurs before combustion. In incomplete combustion, products of pyrolysis remain unburnt and contaminate the smoke with noxious particulate matter and gases. Partially oxidized compounds are also a concern; partial oxidation of ethanol can produce harmful acetaldehyde, and carbon can produce toxic carbon monoxide.



    The quality of combustion can be improved by design of combustion devices, such as burners and internal combustion engines. Further improvements are achievable by catalytic after-burning devices (such as catalytic converters) or by the simple partial return of the exhaust gases into the combustion process. Such devices are required by environmental legislation for cars in most countries, and may be necessary in large combustion devices, such as thermal power plants, to reach legal emission standards.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion



    Yes CO2 is a ?natural? substance found in nature. However too much of it can cause problems. There is evidence that too much CO2 in the atmosphere can cause it to retain heat longer that lower atmosphere with a lower CO2 content. Just Google it or go back in this thread and don't ask me to prove it again.







    Using your same argument, did you know that cyanide is a natural substance produced by some plants and millipedes? But too much of a natural substance can kill right?



    There is some existing capacity to handle the some of the production of CO2:



    Carbon Cycle







    However if you exceed the natural capacity, the end result is increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2. Along with this, we are reducing the natural capacity to consume the CO2 through deforestation, pollution and loss of coral reefs and loss of marine organisms.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Zero impact shouldn't be the goal. We exist and live on this planet. We are allowed to have an impact on it. The goal of environmentalism used to be to manage our resources. Now the goal is to disappear.





    No reasonable person believes in zero impact, however what's wrong with reducing our adverse impact? Reduce CO2 and methane emissions is possible in the long term?so why not start now. If the science is wrong---and it isn't, don't argue about the merits of AWG, clean up the mess---what if their right and we reach the tipping point and we keep contributing to AGW?



    Who said the goal is to disappear? Do you mean if we ignore the problems they will disappear?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Watts Up With That does not support many of his conclusions. I have been able to find science that disputes many of his claims. If you read the articles that are supported with data and are supported by other researchers, you should realize that Watt's science is flawed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Everything you've posted is people's opinions about whether a video should have been scrubbed from YouTube. That would be no different than me citing you on Huffington Post as proof of something. It is still hearsay. It is still opinion.





    Quote:

    The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered to prove their truth and the maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court. Hearsay is "second-hand" information. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to give testimony, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine him or her. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger* that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something.



    http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hearsay-rule/



    No tm, not all I have posted are from YouTube. Regarding Watt's Up, several of jg's post citing Watt have been debunked and refuted.



    True, scientific articles are hearsay. One of the reasons why published scientific articles include methods and data is to enable other researchers to apply it to their research and to replicate the results. Another important part is peer review---I think that I covered this in another thread, but s Cliff or Spark Notes Version:

    Quote:

    Peer Review and Replication



    Peer review is the checking of articles and scientific work by other scientists in the same field. *Without peer review it is not science, in other words peer review is an essential element of science. It is not optional; you can?t claim to do science without it.* Replication is the repetition of one scientist?s experiment or study by other independent scientists to check the results.* It also is an essential element in science.*



    Psychologist Keith Stanovich explains it this way:



    Quote:

    ?Scientific knowledge is public in a special sense?scientific knowledge does not exist solely in the mind of a particular individual. In an important sense, scientific knowledge does not exist at all until it has been submitted to the scientific community for criticism and empirical testing by others. Knowledge that is considered ?special?-the province of the thought processes of a particular individual, immune from scrutiny and criticism by others-can never have the status of scientific knowledge. Science makes the idea of public verifiability concrete via the procedure of replication. In order to be considered in the realm of science, a finding must be presented to the scientific community in a way that enables other scientists to attempt the same experiment and obtain the same results. When this occurs, we say the finding has been replicated? It ensures that a particular finding is not due simply to the errors or biases of a particular investigator. In short, for a finding to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be possible for someone other than the original investigator to duplicate it?



    ?one important way to distinguish charlatans and practitioners of pseudoscience from legitimate scientists is the former often bypass the normal channels of scientific publication and instead go straight to the media with ?their findings.? One ironclad criterion that will always work for the public when presented with scientific claims of uncertain validity is the question: Have the findings been published in a recognized scientific journal that uses some type of peer review procedure? The answer to this question will almost always separate pseudoscientific claims from the real thing?





    http://debunkingprimaltherapy.com/4_...ewreplication/



    If you believe everything is hearsay and it is not to be believe because it is an opinion, then don't believe in anything----Is there a God or Supreme Being?--Hearsay!!! you say?
  • brbr Posts: 8,253member
    Excellent, thorough, detailed, scientifically rigorous response Finetunes. Expect it to be promptly dismissed by Jazzyjazz.
Sign In or Register to comment.