Reprinted from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/ Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt On this site we emphasize conclusions that are supported by “peer-reviewed” climate resear
[quote]Choke on it[/quote]Seems as if you're doing a fine job of choking on it all by yourself. Since you seem to want to compare and contrast Watts and Sinclair it seems fitting to respond with this video that Watt's tried unsucessfully to remove from Youtube. I love the quote about a "junior woodchuck society of camera toting climate sleuths." Funny how the Heartland Institute seems to come up time and time again. <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
[quote]Mumbles! I found you a list. Can you drop this peer review nonsense now? Use a search engine or something and stop reading left wing blogs to get all your information.[/quote]This is a fine example of how the denial industry works. Put up a flood of information in a single sentance putting the burden on the other guy. And you wonder why no credible scientist wants to "debate" any of these denialists? All you do is post a link to an article on a right wing blog wh
[quote] I found you a list. Can you drop this peer review nonsense now?[/quote]And not a single one of them sheds an iota of doubt on either of the two premises of AGW. And you should stop getting all your information from right wing blogs.
[quote]John Christy[/quote] http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903 Associated with all the usual suspects, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition and the Heartland Institute. You should also read <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/"
What's wincustomizetest? I'm not familiar with that site. Perhaps google doesn't search that site, I don't know If you use "chrome site:https://forums.wincustomize.com/forum/503" then you get matches. I also tried chrome site:https://forums.joeuser.com/forum/503 and chrome site:https://forums.galciv2.com/forum/503 and got different matches so you can't always count on getting the same thing. That's why the old forum search was superior in my mind. It wasn't as flexible
You can use the google site specific tag to search only a specific forum or subforum by using the following string. gop site:https://forums.stardock.com/forum/412 this searches only the Off-topic forum i.e. /forum/412 at the Stardock site i.e. forums.Stardock.com for the string "gop" and finds my thread "The GOP Plan" that's in the Off-topic forum. To use this you do need to understand a bit about how Stardock's forum structure is laid out. In your example I ha
From B'klyn ACORN cleared over giving illegal advice on how to hide money from prostitution "Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide m
[quote]Uh, Fox was given, and posted, the full, unedited video from at least one of them. Do you get all your information from Salon.com or something?[/quote]Prove it.
[quote]I suppose you'll insist indefinitely that video tape evidence is just a bunch of white lies to get rid of black people? Not that I mind really, it's sort of par for the course with you.[/quote]I assume you're talking about the acorn crap and if so this is probably not really the place for it, but then we've already drawn the conversation offsides as it is. But no I believe that after three separate investigations into acorn none of which found any evidence of malfeaseance that
[quote]Edit: I will assume that O'keefe is likely a racist based on dirt digging done to take him down. [/quote]And Brietbart knowingly *employs* and spreads O'Keefe's lies. Furthermore assuming that Brietbart was unaware of O'Keefe's racism (which is a significant stretch of the imagination) once it should have become obvious to even Brietbart he continued the relationship. Brietbart continues to defend and employ a known racist. QED
[quote]That's pretty funny, since it's not from Brietbart, only via. You have a thing for not liking the messenger. I've seen those vids before. Your logic has to be pretty twisted for that to be considered 'racist' behavior.[/quote]O'Keefe is most definitely a racist. Brietbart *employs* and spreads the lies of a racist. That's enough for me.
[quote]Lindzen works at MIT. His research is almost entirely government funded.[/quote]He's perhaps one of the few actual credible anti-AGW scientists. However his precise position is not entirely clear. He used to accept that the planet was unequivocally warming but was skeptical as to how much actual human contribution there is. More lately he's been on the "global warming ended 15 years ago" bandwagon. I can be generous and stipulate that he's a credible skeptic and if so t
[quote]This may turn out to be helpful, but won't be reviewing the science itself, just the IPCC 'process'. We'll see[/quote]Sorry. But as soon as I saw Breitbart I refused to look at it. No way will I have anything to do with that racist. I assume that you need more than my assertion that he's a racist so here's some evidence. <img src="http://www.bradblog.com/Image
First off I'm not going to bother trying to totally recreate the past. [quote]Arctic ice. [/quote]Nine year old information that was outdated eight years ago. Try this instead http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107 . [quote]Stop using GISTEMP.[/quote]I'll stop using GISTEMP if and only
On the pro-AGW side we have *every single* scientific organization on the planet, 99.9%+ of all credible scientists and the entirety of the peer reviewed scientific literature. On the anti-AGW side there are a handful of credible scientists, a noticeable portion of the blogosphere and right wing talk radio.
[quote]So that's pretty much not relevant.[/quote]This is what is relevant. [quote]The two premises of AGW are sufficiently "proven" that ... The reality of these key points is not just our opinion. The national academies of science of 32 nations, and every major scientific organization in the United States whose members include climate experts, have issued statements endorsing these points. The entire faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M as we
[quote]You don't understand the concept of statistical significance.[/quote]Certainly I do. We kill people based on a DNA or fingerprint match. That is "proof" in a court of law which is no less a matter of reaching a certain level of statistical significance beyond which there is no "reasonable doubt". There is no reasonable doubt that the planet is warming and that human activity is a significant contribution to that warming.
[quote]it just increases the odds of a relationship being 'not due to chance alone'.[/quote]Until at some point there is no real "chance" involved whatsoever. You can "prove" that dice are loaded, you can "prove" that someone is counting cards at blackjack. The two premises of AGW are sufficiently "proven" that ... The reality of these key points is not just our opinion. The national academies of science of 32 nations, and every major scientific organization in the Uni
[quote]Less than the blink of an eye in climate time. And you know it.[/quote]Of course I know that 30 years is less than a blink of an eye in climate terms. However the 30 years (or 35 years or 60 years dependent on how you view it) of temperature increases are in fact correlated to the level of the now infamous "statistical significance" with the anthropogenic rise in CO2. And you know it.
[quote]'Grossly' and 'overblown' are subjective terms with no application to science. [/quote]To some extent. [quote]The unstratified risk of lung cancer is 20-30% greater in non-smokers with exposure to second-hand smoke than those without such exposure. [/quote]In other words not inconsequential. I forget where I was going with this. Actually no I don't, I do have a point although it is somewhat pedantic. Basically Psycho made a somewhat different analogy between pro
[quote]Smoking is bad for you. What a revelation. But if an adult wants to use a legal product, I'm not going to pass judgment.[/quote]You didn't answer the question. The question was were the risks of tobacco grossly overblown by the scientific community? Also psycho didn't seem to think there was much to do about second hand smoke. So you're OK with allowing an informed adult to decide to do things even if bad for them. So do I. Where I draw the line is when som
[quote]What was the OP about?[/quote]Basically sarcasm questioning the validity of reports of the warmest January on record (reports to which both Spencer and Watts, two noted "skeptics" agreed) because the UK has had a cold winter. [quote]Global warming must be real! We really need to takes some serious steps to curtail this planetary heat wave, which threatens to cover so much of the earth in snow and ice!!![/quote]Yeah, that was it. Of course neither a cold winter in the UK or
[quote]The risks were overblown by a bunch of blowhard politicians and grieving relatives, niether of which are rational[/quote]Really? The risks of smoking are overblown? I wonder praytell how our good doctor friend would respond to this? If you've ever known anyone that died from Emphysema then I doubt you could say this. It's an insidious slow death I wouldn't wish on anyone.
[quote]You can bitch about denial all you want, but the defense of the free market goes hand in hand with both cases. [/quote]Fine, feel free to argue for any other commonalities between pro-tobacco and anti-AGW that you wish. I was only pointing out the similarity in tactics as both positions have no scientifically credible leg to stand on. But as for free market defense, I'm fine if you wish to engage in any activity that shortens or endangers your own life but take exception w
You're about to visit an external site:
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates, and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
JoeUser Forums
Stardock Forums