• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The TRUTH about the Climate Change MYTH

You really HATE to lose an argument.
Bottom line, the climate change bozos have been proven WRONG, just like the global cooling bozos and then the global warming bozos.
Yes, they are seriously wrong. That is if you are referring to the pundits. Most the scientists involved have good research, but their material is misused by the pundits.

What is your major malfunction, PYLE?

th
I don't recognize your reference. Do you expect everyone to?

When I see a soldier, withe the reference of "Pyle," I think of Gomer Pyle.

 
Last edited:
Let’s stop pretending peer review works,” write Julia Belluz and Steven Hoffman at Vox.

Typical Vox click bait, IMO. It's sort of like the old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

The article really doesn't suggest what might work better, except what's already being done, or at least is done in the fields I'm familiar with, which is pre-publication review outside the peer review process (such as the common practice at professional conferences where dozens of papers in progress are presented, critiqued, etc., and scholars traveling around to other schools presenting their papers in workshops - happens regularly at UT) and post publication reviews, which is what research/science is all about. Someone publishes a study, and others in that field build on it, in part by confirming the findings, or publish critiques of it or debunk it. If it's a significant finding, then later researchers use the approach and confirm the initial results, and/or extend it, and either that method/finding/etc. works or it doesn't.

Maybe it's useful for the general public to understand 'peer review' doesn't equal settled science, but not one person publishing papers in any field believes that. What it means is the papers go through a formal vetting, which can and does miss errors. Well, what process wouldn't?
 
Ph.D. in ecology seems relevant.

So, a pediatrician spending his days treating ordinary sniffles, etc. and not doing any research at all into say, cancer, is who we should turn to for advice on the latest treatment protocols? Maybe you want an civil engineer building houses opining on the next generation of fighter jet? Hey, he's an engineer!!
 
Typical Vox click bait, IMO. It's sort of like the old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Well, there are different implementations of peer review. I am for an "open" peer review process.
 
Well, there are different implementations of peer review. I am for an "open" peer review process.

Not sure what that means in this context. An "open" peer review happens every time a paper is published, if the findings are at all significant.

The 'peer review' in traditional use is a way to decide what articles to publish. I'm not sure how an open review process would work in that context. Journal X gets 100 or 500 submissions, can publish 5 per quarter. Traditional peer review is part of how that gets determined.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what that means in this context. An "open" peer review happens every time a paper is published, if the findings are at all significant.

The 'peer review' in traditional use is a way to decide what articles to publish. I'm not sure how an open review process would work in that context. Journal X gets 100 or 500 submissions, can publish 5 per quarter. Traditional peer review is part of how that gets determined.

Generally, the reviewers are not known to the scientists making the article, and vise-versa. There is little recourse if a skeptic gets denied publishing because the reviewers are part of the 97%.

Ever consider that on publication rates? If the reviewers are blatantly biased in their selections or criticize, there is no way of holding them accountable.
 
Generally, the reviewers are not known to the scientists making the article, and vise-versa.

If you're saying that's the process at the top journals, correct. It's intended to be blind both ways. For various reasons, it doesn't always work because the number of experts in a narrow field is fairly small, but that's the goal.

There is little recourse if a skeptic gets denied publishing because the reviewers are part of the 97%.

That's a danger for sure, but ultimately, and researchers figure this out fairly quickly, significant theories/results either work or don't and it doesn't matter what the reviewers do.

Ever consider that on publication rates? If the reviewers are blatantly biased in their selections or criticize, there is no way of holding them accountable.

The way theories are held accountable isn't really whether they're published but whether they 'work' in future research. It's really that simple. So over a fairly short period of time, science is what holds the science accountable, not reviewers.
 
If you're saying that's the process at the top journals, correct. It's intended to be blind both ways. For various reasons, it doesn't always work because the number of experts in a narrow field is fairly small, but that's the goal.



That's a danger for sure, but ultimately, and researchers figure this out fairly quickly, significant theories/results either work or don't and it doesn't matter what the reviewers do.



The way theories are held accountable isn't really whether they're published but whether they 'work' in future research. It's really that simple. So over a fairly short period of time, science is what holds the science accountable, not reviewers.
I think you missed my point.

There is too much potential of cherry picking what scientists already believe. This is too contentious of a field to allow this type of publication selection to continue.
 
I think you missed my point.

There is too much potential of cherry picking what scientists already believe. This is too contentious of a field to allow this type of publication selection to continue.

Its actually not that contentious outside of the blogs you read and wingnut news you follow.

It works for virtually every single scientific discipline in the world. This isnt an exception.

Is it perfect? No. But its pretty solid. The perfect example is that of MBH98. Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the blogs, even a bad paper published looking at flaws, and yet subsequent data has proven the paper to be seminal work and accurate beyond much doubt.
 
Last edited:
It's definitely not contentious in the echo chamber. LOL.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the echo chamber came up short in PAris.

Chalk one up for the good guys, and pass the lemon juice around the Harvard faculty lounge. HAHAHA
 
I think you missed my point.

There is too much potential of cherry picking what scientists already believe. This is too contentious of a field to allow this type of publication selection to continue.

No, I got your point, you believe the reviewers (might) ignore the science and just publish papers they agree with so "skeptics" can't get published even with good science. I acknowledge that is a potential problem, and not just in climate, but that the science ultimately vets the theories no matter what the reviewers do. The theories work or they don't, the conclusions confirmed or rejected. And if the findings of a paper MATTER, almost by definition subsequent research will immediately put those findings to the test in other contexts answering other questions.

And if you don't want this selection method to continue, you have to suggest a better alternative, and I don't know of one.
 
Last edited:
And if you don't want this selection method to continue, you have to suggest a better alternative, and I don't know of one.

The open review process, where the reviewers are known and named.
 
Oh, and I'm not ignorant of any SCIENCE.

A bunch of money hungry political scientists trying to get grant money from socialists by reading computer models all day long does NOT equate to any kind of SCIENCE at all.

Hell, you might as well get predictions from 20 somethings who live at home with their parents and play video games all day long. You might actually get more science out of them.

Repeated post by acident.
 

WRONG.

NOAA?s Own Data Shows That Global Climate Has Cooled Over 10 Years
NOAA’s Own Data Shows That Global Climate Has Cooled Over 10 Years [/


Data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that the United States has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade.

I understand that you think there is not much of any significance out beyond the good old USofA but you are ignorant of the wider world in which America is not all of it.
 
Dr. Moore is not a climatologist and so is not an expert on the subject. There is no reason I should have faith in him.
Why do you care whatsoever whether someone is a climatologist? Do you accept what science says?

If a fifth-grader were to show you the science that says one thing, why would you believe anyone who is telling you the opposite?

Shouldn't you go with what science says?
 
The open review process, where the reviewers are known and named.

I'm not sure what good that can do. I get that anonymity has good and bad effects, but the journals have all looked at the issue and AFAIK, almost all of them at least attempt to make the process blind as the lesser of two flawed options. I don't really want to go into that much, but as someone who is a bystander to both publishing and peer reviews, I'm fully in support of both sides being anonymous to the extent possible.

Besides, I think your earlier comment was correct. The SCIENTISTS on both "sides" (and I don't think that's an accurate description, there are no "sides" with regard to the science, just disagreements) are pretty good about highlighting the differences of scientific opinion. The problem is how the disputes are reported by non-scientists with an ideological ax to grind. For example I see Judith Curry mentioned all the time by skeptics, but as far as I can tell, she's pretty much on board with the notion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans have increased the amount of CO2 and that HAS caused the earth to warm and will in the future. From what I can tell, her skepticism is how much, not whether, but her comments get cherry picked to imply she's in agreement with Cruz or the person on this thread who denies any human role.
 
Why do you care whatsoever whether someone is a climatologist? Do you accept what science says?

If a fifth-grader were to show you the science that says one thing, why would you believe anyone who is telling you the opposite?

Shouldn't you go with what science says?

My problem is that the OP did not directly present any actual evidence against global warming, only the opinion of a non-expert on the subject.
 
What is moderate about you?

Why to all far leftists think they are "moderate?"

I believe in privatizing social security, eliminating welfare, attacking ISIS with ground troops, oppose a carbon tax, want to cut taxes for the poor and the middle class, want to eliminate business taxes for 99% of businesses, believe in gun rights, want to drastically cut government regulations on businesses, and a lot more.
 
My problem is that the OP did not directly present any actual evidence against global warming, only the opinion of a non-expert on the subject.

Once these so called 'experts'can present empirical evidence or indeed any kind of compelling case why this modest warming phase is somehow different from the dozens of others since the last ice age I'll start believing them.

So far the silence on that front has been deafening.

Ice Cores

This is the agenda driven hijacking of a natural phenomenon to suit poltical ends nothing more
 
Last edited:
Once these so called 'experts'can present empirical evidence or indeed any kind of compelling case why this modest warming phase is somehow different from the dozens of others since the last ice age I'll start believing them.

So far the silence on that front has been deafening.

Ice Cores

This is the agenda driven hijacking of a natural phenomenon to suit poltical ends nothing more

Umm. How about this?

9b0aa4623df2037acb209e066e263fea.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom