- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They should act like a scientific journal.
Are you paying for dinner?
They should act like a scientific journal.
I don't think you understand what any of that means or how any of that works.
You're buying a CT victim narrative. You might as well be defending the lamenting of people ignoring "eye witness testimony" that a missile hit the Pentagon.
I know what the peer-review process is, and, while individual journals have their own requirements, it's a little bit disappointing when a journal publishes to the outcry of naysayers and is compelled to change their rules.
It shouldn't matter if a scientific paper offers a perspective different from the commonly accepted one. In another 200 years, our climate science will be much further advanced, but only if new (and skeptical) ideas are both presented, studied, and verified or refuted.
The scientific process does NOT start with the conclusion and then pick out the elements that support that conclusion.
The scientific process starts by gathering ALL the elements and then basing the solution on those elements, EVEN if that solution veers from the norm.
To do anything else is anti-science.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ished-in-top-journals/?utm_term=.753da5de792bThe “reproducibility crisis” in science is erupting again. A research project attempted to replicate 21 social science experiments published between 2010 and 2015 in the prestigious journals Science and Nature. Only 13 replication attempts succeeded. The other eight were duds, with no observed effects consistent with the original findings.
The failures do not necessarily mean the original results were erroneous, as the authors of this latest replication effort note. There could have been gremlins of some type in the second try. But the authors also noted that even in the replications that succeeded, the observed effect was on average only about 75 percent as large as the first time around.
The researchers conclude that there is a systematic bias in published findings, “partly due to false positives and partly due to the overestimated effect sizes of true positives.”
Another clue how corrupt science has become:
Researchers replicate just 13 of 21 social science experiments published in top journals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ished-in-top-journals/?utm_term=.753da5de792b
WE USED TO BE BETTER
They should act like a scientific journal.
I know what the peer-review process is, and, while individual journals have their own requirements, it's a little bit disappointing when a journal publishes to the outcry of naysayers and is compelled to change their rules.
It shouldn't matter if a scientific paper offers a perspective different from the commonly accepted one. In another 200 years, our climate science will be much further advanced, but only if new (and skeptical) ideas are both presented, studied, and verified or refuted.
The scientific process does NOT start with the conclusion and then pick out the elements that support that conclusion.
The scientific process starts by gathering ALL the elements and then basing the solution on those elements, EVEN if that solution veers from the norm.
To do anything else is anti-science.
Peer-reviewed science merits more than your hand-waving dismissal. And the author deserves to have his rebuttal see the light of day.
The papers conclusion is flat out wrong. However, it shows how easy it is to peer review a bad paper into the process. Many other climate papers are just as bad.
[h=1]Climate activists have long history of ducking debates with skeptics[/h]In response to this ridiculous letter in the Guardian saying “we won’t share a debate platform with skeptics” Marc Morano writes: Climate activists and scientists supporting the alleged “consensus” on man-made global warming have a long history of suppressing debate and intimidation scientists into silence. As a new round of calls go out to shut…
Continue reading →
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
Very interesting post! :thumbs: They won't debate, because they are learning that there are skeptics that are not willing to just accept what the "warmers pronounce as gospel?" Hmm.... If it's a secret, shouldn't they be willing to debate as often as possible to convince those who don't agree? Strange way to act, IMO! :screwy: .. :shrug:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
Very interesting post! :thumbs: They won't debate, because they are learning that there are skeptics that are not willing to just accept what the "warmers pronounce as gospel?" Hmm.... If it's a secret, shouldn't they be willing to debate as often as possible to convince those who don't agree? Strange way to act, IMO! :screwy: .. :shrug:
... Do you think scientists should give of their time to provide ‘skeptics’ with a debate platform to promote anti-evolution views, or eugenics?
Let me guess. "By emissions, I mean just the scooters. Not cars, or boats, or agriculture or industry. Just the scooters."
His claim is stupid on its face and an embarrassment to anyone associated with it.
Jack Hayes has 6 posts in a row and not one word of original content among all 6. None of the posts are quoting anyone.
Like that's not spam.
No, it's not. It's a reflection of your (and your allies') preference to hide and avoid discussion.