09 Jan 2020, 8:07 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Beneficii wrote:
Yes. Because it's published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and is a review where the authors details the methods of their study (so that it is reproducible) and present the results.
Do you think the peer review process is infallible?
Of cause it is,
You silly, silly man.
Quote:
107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04 ... iew-fraud/
09 Jan 2020, 8:21 pm
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe,
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
Quote:
Some things have been proven to be flase,
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
I'm getting tired so I haven't read the rest of your post.
I'll tackle it tomorrow.
But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling.
Tomorrow.
I thought you were a skeptic, and yet here you are uncritically, without any evaluation, without looking at any reliable sources, asserting that the process of homogenization is just a way of "cooking the books". I thought you were supposed to be in the middle, and that you just want to hear from both sides. But instead, it looks like you start out from the position that scientists must be acting in bad faith. I think you are a "pseudoskeptic", pretending to be skeptical in order to cover up the fact you're a denialist.
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
I am skeptical about the "Homogenisation" process also, yes,
And so are many others.
Let's not change the subject. You said in response to the model review I posted: "But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling." So, from what I posted, we know that in the period covered by the model predictions from the 1970s on, homogenization had very little effect on the temperature data, especially from the 1980s on:
So your assertion, that the model review only showed that the models were correct because of homogenization to effectively cook the books, is incorrect.
09 Jan 2020, 8:26 pm
beneficii wrote:
So you are incorrect that humans are responsible for only 3% or 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
GOTCHA!
Read my post that hasn't been edited and you quoted.
Quote:
Man-made CO2 is 3% or 4% of that .04%.
I said *point* zero 4% of the 3/4% of atmospheric CO2.
I'm not the one who alerted me to this figure, err.
You know what I mean.
This came from a very intelligent critical thinker questioning the "settled science".
I tend to consider what has been said by rational critical thinkers with bigger brains than me.
And yes,
There are a few.
09 Jan 2020, 8:33 pm
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
So you are incorrect that humans are responsible for only 3% or 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
GOTCHA!
Read my post that hasn't been edited and you quoted.
Quote:
Man-made CO2 is 3% or 4% of that .04%.
I said *point* zero 4% of the 3/4% of atmospheric CO2.
I'm not the one who alerted me to this figure, err.
You know what I mean.
This came from a very intelligent critical thinker questioning the "settled science".
I tend to consider what has been said by rational critical thinkers with bigger brains than me.
And yes,
There are a few.
So even though I showed their statement about human contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was wrong, this "very intelligent critical thinker" of yours gets the benefit of the doubt, while you effectively accuse the scientists of cooking the books without any evidence? That's not what skeptics do.
09 Jan 2020, 8:40 pm
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Pepe,
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
Quote:
Some things have been proven to be flase,
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
Such as climate modelling and Al Gore type predictions.
No, climate modelling has not been proven to be false. In fact, a study released last month shows that the time-series models that take forcing into account are quite accurate, and have been since the 70s:
I'm getting tired so I haven't read the rest of your post.
I'll tackle it tomorrow.
But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling.
Tomorrow.
I thought you were a skeptic, and yet here you are uncritically, without any evaluation, without looking at any reliable sources, asserting that the process of homogenization is just a way of "cooking the books". I thought you were supposed to be in the middle, and that you just want to hear from both sides. But instead, it looks like you start out from the position that scientists must be acting in bad faith. I think you are a "pseudoskeptic", pretending to be skeptical in order to cover up the fact you're a denialist.
Good grief, Charlie Brown.
I am skeptical about the "Homogenisation" process also, yes,
And so are many others.
Let's not change the subject. You said in response to the model review I posted: "But I hope you aren't talking about figues that have been "Homogenised" to suit the modelling." So, from what I posted, we know that in the period covered by the model predictions from the 1970s on, homogenization had very little effect on the temperature data, especially from the 1980s on:
So your assertion, that the model review only showed that the models were correct because of homogenization to effectively cook the books, is incorrect.
There are other graphs which say otherwise.
You are aware of that, right?
I have seen them in passing via the media outlets I view.
Perhaps Sailor can supply some?
I might do a search myself,
But there is only so much cerebral energy I am willing to invest here.
My interest is actually focused on the *psychology* revolving around, err, basically everything/k.
09 Jan 2020, 8:44 pm
09 Jan 2020, 9:09 pm
beneficii wrote:
Pepe wrote:
beneficii wrote:
So you are incorrect that humans are responsible for only 3% or 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere:
GOTCHA!
Read my post that hasn't been edited and you quoted.
Quote:
Man-made CO2 is 3% or 4% of that .04%.
I said *point* zero 4% of the 3/4% of atmospheric CO2.
I'm not the one who alerted me to this figure, err.
You know what I mean.
This came from a very intelligent critical thinker questioning the "settled science".
I tend to consider what has been said by rational critical thinkers with bigger brains than me.
And yes,
There are a few.
So even though I showed their statement about human contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was wrong, this "very intelligent critical thinker" of yours gets the benefit of the doubt, while you effectively accuse the scientists of cooking the books without any evidence? That's not what skeptics do.
I am into psychology bigtime,
And have been so for over 40 years.
Patience,
I am coming to the point.
You have a problem with the concept of an objective mindset.
And you certainly don't understand me, in general.
My position is that I am skeptical about what is being said on either side of the argument.
Another way of saying this is I am fence-sitting while considering opposing arguments,
In certain situations.
I point out, highlight, the argument against, generally speaking, the mainstream position on something like climate change,
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT A SKEPTIC DOES!.
Everyone knew that the earth was flat.
It took a skeptic to introduce the concept that the world was actually a cube.
Please note:
This is a casual interest of mine.
I.E. There is no desperation in me to make a stand, in certain areas.
It is work in progress.
Where I *do* have a major problem is when there is an attempt to emotionally blackmail someone into silence,
And this is the position many on the left (who seem to have a greater affinity with blaming the economy) have.
Well, at least the loud mouths on the left give the impression this is the case.
Look ----> A Greenie.
I don't like irrational and emotional bullying.
So I push back through reason.
"Assertiveness" is *not* a dirty word.
09 Jan 2020, 9:27 pm
beneficii wrote:
It's a whole lot better than a bunch of denialists with an agenda on some blog cherrypicking data and twisting the science around.
Oh,
You are so much fun.
WEEEE!
You are aware that the term "Denier" has loaded negative connotations.
One doesn't have to be Sigmund Freud to understand that this was intentional.
On one side of the climate change debate we have policy architechs/strategists who have deliberately encourage emotionalism, persumably to derail rational debate.
And since most people priorities their emotional needs over intellectual integrity,
This suits the proponents of a particular political viewpoint.
Guess which side that is. <rhetorical>
If you wish to be taken seriously,
If you wish to maintain your credibility coinage,
If you wish to be seen as rational rather than emotionalistic,
I suggest you drop the "denier" pejorative.
<pant>
That was FUNNNN!
Let's do it again!
09 Jan 2020, 9:50 pm
09 Jan 2020, 9:54 pm
SoloSailor wrote:
Beneficii wrote:
...any reliable sources..
How do you determine if a source is reliable?
I was there and it is definitely *NOT* the case.
There was an Extinction Rebellion Group propagating disinformation to service their political agenda
And inhibiting my getting to work.
09 Jan 2020, 9:55 pm
09 Jan 2020, 9:57 pm
Pepe wrote:
I was there and it is definitely *NOT* the case.
There was an Extinction Rebellion Group propagating disinformation to service their political agenda
And inhibiting my getting to work. \
There was an Extinction Rebellion Group propagating disinformation to service their political agenda
And inhibiting my getting to work.
\You have a job?
Just heard the head of extinction rebellion asking the police to allocate their resources to the bushfire threat today rather than playing politics for the federal government.
09 Jan 2020, 10:40 pm
Beneficii wrote:
It's not infallible, but it's the best thing we have.
Is it really? I would disagree.
I think the best thing we have is right between our own ears.
Consider the paper that I linked to previously.
You acknowlege that the peer review process isn't infallable- yet you still accepted the paper as valid because it was published in a peer reviewed journal.
Did you stop there because the conclusion appears to reinforce your beliefs?
Did you even think to consider the merits of the conclusion itself?
No alarm bells ringing yet?
Read the discussion here:
Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming
Beneficii wrote:
It's a whole lot better than a bunch of denialists with an agenda on some blog cherrypicking data and twisting the science around.
10 Jan 2020, 3:38 am
SoloSailor wrote:
Beneficii wrote:
It's not infallible, but it's the best thing we have.
Is it really? I would disagree.
I think the best thing we have is right between our own ears.
Consider the paper that I linked to previously.
You acknowlege that the peer review process isn't infallable- yet you still accepted the paper as valid because it was published in a peer reviewed journal.
Did you stop there because the conclusion appears to reinforce your beliefs?
Did you even think to consider the merits of the conclusion itself?
No alarm bells ringing yet?
Read the discussion here:
Scientists reach 100% consensus on anthropogenic global warming
Beneficii wrote:
It's a whole lot better than a bunch of denialists with an agenda on some blog cherrypicking data and twisting the science around.
I skimmed the discussion, didn't see anything to change my mind. There was mostly a whole lot of cries about, "OMG, can you believe they said that?" Some attempted to get more technical and go into particular studies or whatever, but discussions like that go way over my head. I guess if it's valid, they can try getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal somewhere. But if they're not able to publish everywhere, I will take that as a proxy for, There's something wrong with their arguments they need to rectify. My advice to them would be, like I've said before:
GIT GUD
I don't want to hear whining about how all the institutions around the world are supposed to be part of some conspiracy to unfairly block their "research", or groupthink or whatever. If you make a valid point in the field, you can get published in the peer-reviewed literature, it happens frequently in multiple fields. The peer-reviewed journals are not afraid to publish controversy where it legitimately exists in a field. If you guys have a valid point, it's YOUR job to get better and start convincing climate scientists.
10 Jan 2020, 3:48 am
10 Jan 2020, 3:51 am
