Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 23 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Global Warming, Are you a Believer
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 8:42AM #221
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 14, 2012 -- 10:52PM, teilhard wrote:


You're kidding, right ... ???  (No, apparently you're NOT ...)




The Source YOU rely on for Scientific Information re: Global Climate (Change) is ...


The Lakeland Times from Minocqua, Wisconsin ... ???


THAT is THE "Scientific Journal" for YOU, I guess ...




*** guffaw ***





TH .... as opposed to just dissing the source, which is only a media conduit relaying information from other procedings, try reading it.  Proof that you didn't read it, you said nothing about all the IPCC scientist who've defected from the CAGW agenda.


Here's another reading piece for you.  This one from Climate Scientists, Dr. Tim Ball.


drtimball.com/2012/consensus-argument-pr...


Look at this quote:


"On 22 December 2004 there’s another RealClimate insight;



We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).



This admits consensus is unnecessary in science, but necessary for climate science “for public presentation” or propaganda."


 


Like I said in my previous post .. .what good does it do to reference material, .. for politically driven Warmists, reference material is useless ... because you don't READ it.  Instead, you'd rather bash the medium.




Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 9:31AM #222
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

I've been a Member of The American Association for The Advancement of Science (Biology Section) for nearly forty Years ... Every Week, my snail-Mail Box receives one of the World's finest Scientific Journals, "Science," which I read ...


There is of course nothing wrong with reading popular Press and small local Newspapers ... I like those, too ... I read LOTS of Stuff at my local Library ...


For SCIENTIFIC Information, I RELY on proper Peer-reviewed JOURNALS -- not small summary Articles written by local News Reporters ... OR on Fringe wacko lone Individuals who post Stuff on The Web ...


Again ... The Natural Sciences are a VERY good Way of getting Information about how The Universe works .... The Activity called, "Science," is carried forward by an entire international COMMUNITY of Investigators, Experimenters, and Observers ... Their cumulative Findings and Discoveries, added together, form the CONSENSUS of the Scientific Community ...


No ... I DON'T take a handful of Flat-Earth Enthusiasts seriously ... Nor do I spend any Time worrying about "Leftist" Conspiracies and One-World-Guv'Mint ...


May 15, 2012 -- 8:42AM, Bodean wrote:


May 14, 2012 -- 10:52PM, teilhard wrote:


You're kidding, right ... ???  (No, apparently you're NOT ...)




The Source YOU rely on for Scientific Information re: Global Climate (Change) is ...


The Lakeland Times from Minocqua, Wisconsin ... ???


THAT is THE "Scientific Journal" for YOU, I guess ...




*** guffaw ***





TH .... as opposed to just dissing the source, which is only a media conduit relaying information from other procedings, try reading it.  Proof that you didn't read it, you said nothing about all the IPCC scientist who've defected from the CAGW agenda.


Here's another reading piece for you.  This one from Climate Scientists, Dr. Tim Ball.


drtimball.com/2012/consensus-argument-pr...


Look at this quote:


"On 22 December 2004 there’s another RealClimate insight;



We’ve used the term “consensus” here a bit recently without ever really defining what we mean by it. In normal practice, there is no great need to define it – no science depends on it. But it’s useful to record the core that most scientists agree on, for public presentation. The consensus that exists is that of the IPCC reports, in particular the working group I report (there are three WG’s. By “IPCC”, people tend to mean WG I).



This admits consensus is unnecessary in science, but necessary for climate science “for public presentation” or propaganda."


 


Like I said in my previous post .. .what good does it do to reference material, .. for politically driven Warmists, reference material is useless ... because you don't READ it.  Instead, you'd rather bash the medium.








Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 9:59AM #223
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 15, 2012 -- 9:31AM, teilhard wrote:


For SCIENTIFIC Information, I RELY on proper Peer-reviewed JOURNALS -- not small summary Articles written by News Reporters ... OR on Fringe wacko lone Individuals who post Stuff on The Web ...





You know as well as I that Peer Reviewed Journals are not an efficient means of communication within discussion.  Hence, why we have "review articles" ... articles that summarize the peer reviewed material.


Further, incidents of unethical behavior are not published in peer reviewed journals.  They are NEWS items.  There is no peer reviewed article that details how the IPCC used inappropriate material.  In such cases, you get "Summary Reports" from organizations, like the IAC, who investigated the occurances, and then published their findings.


It's like your bogus consensus.  There is NO PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that has published a peer reviewed study showing there is a Consensus.  As noted in ALL of Science, Consensus is USELESS to science .. but as Tim Ball accurately stated, they are usefull in propaganda.


Tim Ball .. a fringe Wacko??  Shaviv .. a Wacko??  James Lovelock, the God of Gaia .. who admits we don't know what the climate is doing .. a wacko?? [well ... yes, I'd agree].  The former President of the American Physics Society ... a Wacko??


On what grounds do you make such assertions TH??  Is it simply that they disagree with the "consensus"?


Rich dude! ... really rich.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 10:44AM #224
catboxer
Posts: 14,069

The consensus is that burning fossil fuels produces heat.


And that heat is hot.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 10:50AM #225
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 15, 2012 -- 10:44AM, catboxer wrote:


The consensus is that burning fossil fuels produces heat.


And that heat is hot.





Thanks Cat .... I think we can all agree on that consensus. :-)


There's a thought ... maybe it's not CO2 per say that is causing Global Warming ..but our Burning everything we can get our hands on ... thus causing extra heat.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:13AM #226
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

LOL ...


By all means, you are FREE to go ahead and continue getting your "Scientific" Information from The Lakeland News of Minocqua, Wisconsin ...


i will continue to rely on peer-reviewed Scientific JOURNALS ...


(But watch out for the Black Helicopters and Blue Helmets ... !!!)


May 15, 2012 -- 9:59AM, Bodean wrote:


May 15, 2012 -- 9:31AM, teilhard wrote:


For SCIENTIFIC Information, I RELY on proper Peer-reviewed JOURNALS -- not small summary Articles written by News Reporters ... OR on Fringe wacko lone Individuals who post Stuff on The Web ...





You know as well as I that Peer Reviewed Journals are not an efficient means of communication within discussion.  Hence, why we have "review articles" ... articles that summarize the peer reviewed material.


Further, incidents of unethical behavior are not published in peer reviewed journals.  They are NEWS items.  There is no peer reviewed article that details how the IPCC used inappropriate material.  In such cases, you get "Summary Reports" from organizations, like the IAC, who investigated the occurances, and then published their findings.


It's like your bogus consensus.  There is NO PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that has published a peer reviewed study showing there is a Consensus.  As noted in ALL of Science, Consensus is USELESS to science .. but as Tim Ball accurately stated, they are usefull in propaganda.


Tim Ball .. a fringe Wacko??  Shaviv .. a Wacko??  James Lovelock, the God of Gaia .. who admits we don't know what the climate is doing .. a wacko?? [well ... yes, I'd agree].  The former President of the American Physics Society ... a Wacko??


On what grounds do you make such assertions TH??  Is it simply that they disagree with the "consensus"?


Rich dude! ... really rich.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:22AM #227
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

TH .. expand your mind ....


www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cli...


"In one of the e-mails, East Anglia's Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


 


LOL .. so you rely on "peer-reviewed literature".  Is this what you call "peer-reviewed" ... a clique of politically connected friends, working to keep other peer reviewed studies out, because they disagree with the intent of the IPCC, which is to demonize CO2 and Man as the culprit. [you do know that the IPCC is a political organization chartered to show how man is affecting climate ... don't you??]


Oh yes ... just look at all this peer reviewed study that was omitted from the IPCC because it disagreed with the "consensus". 


These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.


That's ok TH .. Nixon kept his head in the sand on watergate as well .. but it didn't go away.  Truth will come out.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:30AM #228
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

I agree that it takes Time and active Engagement for (Consensus) "Truth" eventually to "come out" ...


E.g., for a quite a while now The Climate Change "Deniers" have had their shrill Claims publicized as well-meaning but naive Reporters and Talk-Show Hosts have tried to provide "BOTH 'Sides'" of the Issue ... (just as they have done, e.g., -- weirdly and unhelpfully -- for the "Debate" between "Evolution" and "Creation-ism" ... Tellingly, the "Creation Science" Guys have voiced EXACTLY  THE  SAME  Complaints about not being allowed to publish THEIR Stuff in prestigious peer-reviewed Scientific Journals ... hmmmmm ...) ...


May 15, 2012 -- 11:22AM, Bodean wrote:


TH .. expand your mind ....


www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cli...


"In one of the e-mails, East Anglia's Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


 


LOL .. so you rely on "peer-reviewed literature".  Is this what you call "peer-reviewed" ... a clique of politically connected friends, working to keep other peer reviewed studies out, because they disagree with the intent of the IPCC, which is to demonize CO2 and Man as the culprit. [you do know that the IPCC is a political organization chartered to show how man is affecting climate ... don't you??]


Oh yes ... just look at all this peer reviewed study that was omitted from the IPCC because it disagreed with the "consensus". 


These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.


That's ok TH .. Nixon kept his head in the sand on watergate as well .. but it didn't go away.  Truth will come out.





Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:44AM #229
Bodean
Posts: 11,110

May 15, 2012 -- 9:31AM, teilhard wrote:


For SCIENTIFIC Information, I RELY on proper Peer-reviewed JOURNALS --




Ask .. and you shall receive .... all 900+ Peer Reviewed Articles that oppose CAGW.


www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-r...


Scroll down till you get to the "index" .. that way you can read the sector of your choice.


I think you'll particularly like this one.


3 ACCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: ABBOT, MAROHASY : (2010) 22 ELM ... copy held at ...


climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Abbo...

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  May 15, 2012 - 11:47AM #230
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

So ... Post-up the best summary Article from the Lot ... or not ...


May 15, 2012 -- 11:44AM, Bodean wrote:


May 15, 2012 -- 9:31AM, teilhard wrote:


For SCIENTIFIC Information, I RELY on proper Peer-reviewed JOURNALS --




Ask .. and you shall receive .... all 900+ Peer Reviewed Articles that oppose CAGW.


www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-r...


Scroll down till you get to the "index" .. that way you can read the sector of your choice.


I think you'll particularly like this one.


3 ACCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: ABBOT, MAROHASY : (2010) 22 ELM ... copy held at ...


climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Abbo...





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 25  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook