• 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 naive notion that peer review leads to sound studies.


[h=1]HOW BAD IS THE GOVERNMENT’S SCIENCE? (It’s worse than we thought.)[/h]From the National Association of Scholars via an article in the Wall Street Journal. Policy makers often cite research to justify their rules, but many of those studies wouldn’t replicate Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim…
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]HOW BAD IS THE GOVERNMENT’S SCIENCE? (It’s worse than we thought.)[/h]From the National Association of Scholars via an article in the Wall Street Journal. Policy makers often cite research to justify their rules, but many of those studies wouldn’t replicate Half the results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are probably wrong. John Ioannidis, now a professor of medicine at Stanford, made headlines with that claim…
Click to expand...

You rely on government science every single day
 
This is how dumb dishonest hacks are, that make stupid threads like the beginning thread. You know where they are trying to go with this, since they are so unoriginal and mostly all post hte same dumb ****. They will claim science is a sham because of some bad actors. That this somehow validates their opinion. Which is based on what? Nothing, its just what they want to believe. What is the standard of truth? We know for them, its whatever they want to believe is true, everything else is fake

So what if science isn't full proof, nothing in this world is. It is still the best we have. And in fact, we know for a fact it does work, as I mentioned, all the technological advances are based on knowledge of the world found by science. And it works
 
longview said:
No, I am part of the solution to political driven science.
Let the data stand of fall on it's own.
Click to expand...

Well that is what every science agency on the planet does. Which one agrees with you on AGW? LOL
 
vegas giants said:
You rely on government science every single day
Click to expand...

Where do these forking idiots come from that flood forums with such stupidity.

Government research got us to the move, satellite technoloy, the internet, advances in automotives, the entire biotechnology industry, many blockbuster drugs, countless other technoloogies, even google came from university research funded by federal dollars. You can probably credit a lot more where the basic science companies used to develop a product was from federal research
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Where do these forking idiots come from that flood forums with such stupidity.

Government research got us to the move, satellite technoloy, the internet, advances in automotives, the entire biotechnology industry, many blockbuster drugs, countless other technoloogies, even google came from university research funded by federal dollars. You can probably credit a lot more where the basic science companies used to develop a product was from federal research
Click to expand...

Dude. Didn't you hear about the international conspiracy involving every science agency and every country on earth? It was on all the CT threads. LOL
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Where do these forking idiots come from that flood forums with such stupidity.

Government research got us to the move, satellite technoloy, the internet, advances in automotives, the entire biotechnology industry, many blockbuster drugs, countless other technoloogies, even google came from university research funded by federal dollars. You can probably credit a lot more where the basic science companies used to develop a product was from federal research
Click to expand...

". . . Mr. Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars. Mr. Randall is the NAS’s director of research and a co-author of its new report, “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science.”
A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology. Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs. Many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations. . . . "
 
vegas giants said:
Well that is what every science agency on the planet does. Which one agrees with you on AGW? LOL
Click to expand...
Science is done by individuals, not committees, or scientific organizations.
Do you know what those organizations actually agree on related to AGW?
The only common thread, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so yes they all agree with me.
The Science portion of AGW is really simply that, the remaining is a belief that the CO2 forced warming,
will be amplified through feedbacks, to produce additional warming, with a very uncertain range(1.5 to 4.5C).
If we want to call something science, we must have a repeatable test we can point to.
A test that others can replicate in a lab and get similar results.
We can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but beyond that, there is no validated test, showing the amplified feedbacks exists.
The models show they exists, because the assumed feedbacks were programed into the models.
There really are feedbacks, but we do not understand all of them of how they interact.
Some research has found the feedbacks are negative. (lindzen and choi 2011)
This does not even begin to address the question, of, if warming is beneficial, or harmful.
 
longview said:
Science is done by individuals, not committees, or scientific organizations.
Do you know what those organizations actually agree on related to AGW?
The only common thread, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so yes they all agree with me.
The Science portion of AGW is really simply that, the remaining is a belief that the CO2 forced warming,
will be amplified through feedbacks, to produce additional warming, with a very uncertain range(1.5 to 4.5C).
If we want to call something science, we must have a repeatable test we can point to.
A test that others can replicate in a lab and get similar results.
We can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but beyond that, there is no validated test, showing the amplified feedbacks exists.
The models show they exists, because the assumed feedbacks were programed into the models.
There really are feedbacks, but we do not understand all of them of how they interact.
Some research has found the feedbacks are negative. (lindzen and choi 2011)
This does not even begin to address the question, of, if warming is beneficial, or harmful.
Click to expand...

No that is not what they agree to. I refer you to the NASA AGW consensus page for quotes of what they believe. Can you find it?
 
vegas giants said:
No that is not what they agree to. I refer you to the NASA AGW consensus page for quotes of what they believe. Can you find it?
Click to expand...
Yep, with ease.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Here is the core of their statement,
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
Now lets do the math.
CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 406 ppm
The general consensus is that doubling the CO2 level would force warming of 1.1 C,
so 1.1/ln(2)=1.59, so 1.59 X ln(406/280)= .59 C.
So the majority of the observed .89 C of warming over the last century is from CO2 forcing.
This agrees with me, and with the NASA statement.
Notice that none of the predicted amplified feedback is necessary to satisfy Nasa's statement.
 
longview said:
Yep, with ease.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Here is the core of their statement,
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
Now lets do the math.
CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 406 ppm
The general consensus is that doubling the CO2 level would force warming of 1.1 C,
so 1.1/ln(2)=1.59, so 1.59 X ln(406/280)= .59 C.
So the majority of the observed .89 C of warming over the last century is from CO2 forcing.
This agrees with me, and with the NASA statement.
Notice that none of the predicted amplified feedback is necessary to satisfy Nasa's statement.
Click to expand...

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."


I can go on if you like. LOL
 
vegas giants said:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."


I can go on if you like. LOL
Click to expand...
Since you pointed to NASA's consensus page, I used NASA's comment,
I understand what the editors of those statements say, but that is not science.
Where is the peer reviewed science, showing repeatable test, validating the high gain feedbacks necessary
for the catastrophic portion of the AGW predictions?
 
longview said:
Since you pointed to NASA's consensus page, I used NASA's comment,
I understand what the editors of those statements say, but that is not science.
Where is the peer reviewed science, showing repeatable test, validating the high gain feedbacks necessary
for the catastrophic portion of the AGW predictions?
Click to expand...

So then you must agree those agencies are part of an international conspiracy.....or are they just stupid?
 
vegas giants said:
So then you must agree those agencies are part of an international conspiracy.....or are they just stupid?
Click to expand...
Not at all, they understand that many of their members derive funding from findings that appear to agree with the IPCC.
It is like saying that millions of people conspire together to get up and go to work each day,
the reality is, each is seeking his own best interest, and the result happens to be them all getting up and going to work.
 
longview said:
Not at all, they understand that many of their members derive funding from findings that appear to agree with the IPCC.
It is like saying that millions of people conspire together to get up and go to work each day,
the reality is, each is seeking his own best interest, and the result happens to be them all getting up and going to work.
Click to expand...

No what you are saying is they know the truth but are lying to get funding. All of them. In a international conspiracy. That is your position
 
vegas giants said:
No what you are saying is they know the truth but are lying to get funding. All of them. In a international conspiracy. That is your position
Click to expand...
Who said they are lying? The researchers are not, their findings are mostly framed with levels of uncertainty
that include most possible outcomes.
The teach graduate classes in how to win grants, it boils down to saying what the reviewers want to hear.
No conspiracy, just individuals trying to get funding.
 
longview said:
Who said they are lying? The researchers are not, their findings are mostly framed with levels of uncertainty
that include most possible outcomes.
The teach graduate classes in how to win grants, it boils down to saying what the reviewers want to hear.
No conspiracy, just individuals trying to get funding.
Click to expand...


You honor please direct the witness to answer the question. Lol
Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge
 
longview said:
Are you saying that a review of the IPCC by the UN is part of a global conspiracy?
Here is the report,
http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.pdf

Not a blog but an IPCC assessment report.
Click to expand...
...from which, as usual, you cherry-picked.

So, what does the IAC really think?

The commitment of many
thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment
process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding
of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and
mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right.
Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and
their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through
its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has
heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific
debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations.

The report did have some criticisms of the IPCC, and recommendations for change. None of those objections in any way amounted to a rejection of the vast majority of the science. Quite a bit was about management, media relations, speeding up the summary for policy makers, and so on.

But hey, who cares about that, when you can pluck three sentences out of a 123-page document, and twist it to your own agenda? :roll:
 
ludin said:
"Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented."
Click to expand...

This for me is key. I was recently attacked for saying "if we assume" for a number in a calculation, when these PHD's writing papers do that exact thing regularly. Then the pundits take such assumptions as fact, and these alarmists don't understand that it all started with an assumption that likely has no reality.
 
vegas giants said:
You honor please direct the witness to answer the question. Lol
Are their statements truthful regarding AGW to the best of their knowledge
Click to expand...
Any answer that falls within the range of uncertainty is true.
Since we are talking about a supposed amplified system, even the input forcing, (the warming form 2XCO2),
has quite a bit of uncertainty, which is amplified!
 
Visbek said:
...from which, as usual, you cherry-picked.

So, what does the IAC really think?

The commitment of many
thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment
process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding
of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and
mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right.
Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and
their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through
its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has
heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific
debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations.

The report did have some criticisms of the IPCC, and recommendations for change. None of those objections in any way amounted to a rejection of the vast majority of the science. Quite a bit was about management, media relations, speeding up the summary for policy makers, and so on.

But hey, who cares about that, when you can pluck three sentences out of a 123-page document, and twist it to your own agenda? :roll:
Click to expand...

For a report entitled,
"Climate change assessments
Review of the processes and
procedures of the IPCC"
One would expect to fine you know assessments.
Showing one of the findings, is not cherry picking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom