or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An inconvenient truth
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An inconvenient truth - Page 2

post #41 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.

SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.

Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.

In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Not so, for if it were "professionally published information" you'd be able to give the proper citation reference, publication, volume, etceteras.

The only acceptable place for critiques of climate science research in the form of technical publications of the climate science is in itself in said same technical publications also known as highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science publications. I've mentioned this now at least half a dozen times, and each time it's been completely ignored. I wonder why?

That the Denialists/Contrarians can not do this is undeniable proof that they can not do so, for obvious reasons. Their counterarguments could not, would not, can not, withstand the peer reviewed process.

The politics? You have repeatedly posted links to the politics, and this has now been pointed out on numerous, no many, occasions.

All the other links you've posted, have been in the form of the well known non sequiter. Define arctic ice, because the polar ice cap has reached the two lowest minima in 2007 and 2008, since the satellite era began (1979). No getting around that fact.

Like your last link, let's see where we are when it really counts, around the fall equinox;

Quote:
Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt.

If I were to wear a tinfoil hat, which I don't, I'd almost think that we've (meaning you and me specifically) have danced this dance before here in PO. Hmm ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #42 of 128
Is the peer review process flawless? Incorruptible? Is it possible the peer review process could be manipulated to produce desired results?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #43 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Is the peer review process flawless? Incorruptible? Is it possible the peer review process could be manipulated to produce desired results?

See scientific method. \

Also there are no publication criteria whatsoever, and absolutely no peer review process whatsoever, with respect to internet blogs.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #44 of 128
See peer review.

Pay particular attention to the "Criticisms of Peer Review" section. Obviously, the peer review process is not without its problems.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #45 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

See peer review.

Pay particular attention to the "Criticisms of Peer Review" section. Obviously, the peer review process is not without its problems.

Quote:
This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations

I fully understand the peer review process, since I've personally been on both sides of that fence.

Now we return you to your normally scheduled programming, the scientific method. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #46 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I fully understand the peer review process, since I've personally been on both sides of that fence.

Now we return you to your normally scheduled programming, the scientific method. \

Which has nothing to do with my original question referring to the peer review process. You can admit the peer review process can be corrupted. It's okay. I won't gloat.

Edited to add: yes, the peer review process can be considered PART of the scientific method. But my original question was about whether or not the peer review process is flawless and incorruptible.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #47 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Which has nothing to do with my original question referring to the peer review process. You can admit the peer review process can be corrupted. It's okay. I won't gloat.

Nothing is perfect, pointing out such, is a classic non sequiter.

We now return you to your normally scheduled programming, the scientific method. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #48 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Nothing is perfect, pointing out such, is a classic non sequiter.

We now return you to your normally scheduled programming, the scientific method. \



Then you agree that "peer reviewed" scientific literature can be inaccurate, flawed, or otherwise false.

Glad we're on the same page.

We now return you to your normally scheduled programming, the scientific method. \

Coming up: pythagorean theorem

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #49 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


Then you agree that "peer reviewed" scientific literature can be inaccurate, flawed, or otherwise false.

Glad we're on the same page.

We now return you to your normally scheduled programming, the scientific method.

Coming up: pythagorean theorem

Classic strawperson. Glad to see that we're not, nor have we ever been, on the same page, scientifically speaking. One person, trained in the scientific method for ~35 years, versus an abject layperson, objectively speaking.

Please come back, oh, in about ~35 years. When you can claim an equal first hand understanding of the scientific method.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #50 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Classic strawperson. Glad to see that we're not, nor have we ever been, on the same page, scientifically speaking. One person, trained in the scientific method for ~35 years, versus an abject layperson, objectively speaking.

Please come back, oh, in about ~35 years. When you can claim an equal first hand understanding of the scientific method.


This message was brought to you by superiority complex.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #51 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This message was brought to you by superiority complex.

I'm more than happy to be challenged by anyone, here or elsewhere, on what the scientific method means.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #52 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I'm more than happy to be challenged by anyone, here or elsewhere, on what the scientific method means.

Wikipedia as source? Pathetc...
post #53 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Wikipedia as source? Pathetc...

Tell jazzguru whilst your at it....peer reviewed science....pathetic
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #54 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Tell jazzguru whilst your at it....peer reviewed science....pathetic

Indeed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #55 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Indeed.

Glad you think so much is so funny

Anyway, as ever, your making a mockery of PO. So I wont respond further to you.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Wikipedia as source? Pathetc...

Pathetc?
post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Glad you think so much is so funny

Anyway, as ever, your making a mockery of PO. So I wont respond further to you.

What's not to laugh at?

I'm making a mockery of PO? How?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #58 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Wikipedia as source? Pathetc...

Really? Yes! Really and truly a PATHETIC ad hominem. Find a better, readably better, arguably better, online definition for the scientific method.

It's the first hit that comes up in a Google search, BTW.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #59 of 128
Maybe he meant Path etc? So many paths!!!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #60 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Maybe he meant Path etc? So many paths!!!

Apparently.

Just look at the wikipedia disclaimer at the top of their scientific method entry;

Quote:
Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled due to vandalism.

I'm guessing vandalism from Creationists or science Contrarians/Denialists.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Apparently.

Just look at the wikipedia disclaimer at the top of their scientific method entry;



I'm guessing vandalism from Creationists or science Contrarians/Denialists.

I'm guessing the Tooth Fairy.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #62 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm guessing the Tooth Fairy.

You mean doG did it? Same thing.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #63 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You mean doG did it? Same thing.

I assume you mean God. And no, that's not what I meant.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #64 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Apparently.

Just look at the wikipedia disclaimer at the top of their scientific method entry;



I'm guessing vandalism from Creationists or science Contrarians/Denialists.

I can picture Inhofe, right now, fuming methane over this.

My bought off scientists, proved beyond any doubt that it's man-made. Here's the scientific proof

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ians-edge.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #65 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I assume you mean God. And no, that's not what I meant.

The Tooth Fairy and doG are both ficticious creations. Therefore, same difference.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 128
CBO reports, you decide.

Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the United States (PDF file)


Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the United States (blog)

Quote:
For example, some recent research suggests that the median increase in average global temperature during the 21st century will be in the vicinity of 9° Fahrenheit if no actions are taken to reduce the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions. However, warming could be much less or much greater than that median level, depending on the growth of emissions and the response of the climate system to those emissions.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #67 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Apparently.

Just look at the wikipedia disclaimer at the top of their scientific method entry;



I'm guessing vandalism from Creationists or science Contrarians/Denialists.

Or,
Please read The Conservapedia Commandments before contributing.
post #68 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Classic strawperson. Glad to see that we're not, nor have we ever been, on the same page, scientifically speaking. One person, trained in the scientific method for ~35 years, versus an abject layperson, objectively speaking.

Please come back, oh, in about ~35 years. When you can claim an equal first hand understanding of the scientific method.


Ignoring science for the moment, it seems he cannot even find the biblical foundations for the belief he expouses. Possibly because they do not exist...but he didn't really know that either.
post #69 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Ignoring science for the moment, it seems he cannot even find the biblical foundations for the belief he expouses. Possibly because they do not exist...but he didn't really know that either.

So it seems.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #70 of 128
Just for laughs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_197243.html


And cigarettes and Climate Change are good for you....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #71 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Just for laughs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_197243.html

I saw that on my TeeVee last night - it was quite entertaining.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #72 of 128
Give the guy a break, he was bushwacked, like Palin was.
post #73 of 128
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will provide a clip to the very articulate reply Obama provided when he was asked about evolution and his attempts to reconcile it with his religion.

Oh wait, we only have clips about his answering questions about his own historical significance?

Oops.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #74 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

CBO reports, you decide.

Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the United States (PDF file)


Potential Impacts of Climate Change in the United States (blog)



The CBO seems to think peer review means nothing.
"As always, the assistance of external reviewers implies no responsibility for the final
product, which rests solely with CBO."

The reviewers really are not peers. The "B" in CBO stands for budget. They are just bean counters.
post #75 of 128
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-on-evolution/
Quote:
Q: York County was recently in the news for a lawsuit involving the teaching of intelligent design. Whats your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?
A: Im a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state.
But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe theres a difference between science and faith. That doesnt make faith any less important than science. It just means theyre two different things. And I think its a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly dont hold up to scientific inquiry.
post #76 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

The CBO seems to think peer review means nothing.
"As always, the assistance of external reviewers implies no responsibility for the final
product, which rests solely with CBO."

The reviewers really are not peers. The "B" in CBO stands for budget. They are just bean counters.

Are you OK?

I mean you sound disturbed over something that CBO did.

I'd suggest that you read up on the subject, in the highly respected well established peer reviewed climate science literature, as at least, CBO has done so.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #77 of 128
Quote:

Sorry, but that isn't asking him his personal belief. That is asking him about teaching evolution in schools. He offers it but isn't asked to reconcile it in any fashion.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #78 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Just for laughs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_197243.html


And cigarettes and Climate Change are good for you....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

Two most excellent links HS.

I also saw the first one on TeeVee.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #79 of 128
Oops indeed.
Quote:
I believe in evolution

Seems cut and dried to me.

But then everything Obama says in your opinion isn't worth crap right?

Having faith and understanding the differences without pandering is something foreign to some.

In this instance he spoke what he believed, unlike Pence.

Dissemble all you like, won't change the outcome.
post #80 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Are you OK?

I mean you sound disturbed over something that CBO did.

I'd suggest that you read up on the subject, in the highly respected well established peer reviewed climate science literature, as at least, CBO has done so.

I'm not disturbed, but the CBO has no standing.
The CBO piece is nothing more than an opinion piece (and they say as much). My tax dollars should be better spent. for example...
If the Government is so convinced that the world is coming to an end, Why don't they mandate that THEY in the government give up their big cars and air polluting big jets (Nancy). Why doesn't the postal service run their vehicles on CNG? How about Government going paperless? How about they turn off the lights on all the monuments in D.C. How about they close D.C. to car traffic? How about they (Those in Government) lead by example. "Do as I say NOT as I do?" NO, NO and NO...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › An inconvenient truth