Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By all means, school me. I know you have absolutely no background in the natural sciences, so it should be funny. I don't claim to be a great researcher or to have much of a background in "bench science", but I do have my name on one paper that we are still trying to get published.
I'll assume that is one more than you.
If you really want to discuss the "scientific method", then you'd better be prepared to discuss some biostats (i.e. p values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predicitive value, negative predicitive value, Relative Risk, Odds Ratios, Chi Squared, etc), because that is where I start to pay attention to it. Especially when it comes to hypothesis and the null hypothesis.
Scientific consensus is a byproduct of scientific work which is done under the scientific method.
I've listed it once already:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To claim that consensus is irrelevant is idiotic. But, then again, so are you.
See? We both used the term "idiot" in our post!
You cite Wiki? No wonder you're still waiting for publication. Don't quit your day job while you;re at it!
That was the kind of lame-assed retort I expected from you. As I said, I am more than prepared to discuss the scientific method and process with you if you want to step up the plate.
Also, you've been called on your bullshit.
So go ahead and produce some peer reviewed work to back up your claims.
The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?
The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?
Global warming isn't science.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry, real scientists disagree with you.
CERN proposes otherwise.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sorry, real scientists disagree with you.
CERN proposes otherwise.
CERN very much knows that it IS a science.
CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register
NewsRoomAmerica.com - CERN: Global Warming Caused by Sun
Sun Causes Climate Change Shock Telegraph Blogs
I'll cite as many as you want, but CERN clearly respects this as a science, not as political hocus pocus.
I'm sorry, but just because you are politically biased, doesn't mean you can simply cover your eyes and ears and shout lalala.
The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?
Pretty much yeah. Billions and billions of dollars are riding on the continued alarmism models. To date, not a single prediction made by any computer model has been correct. They have all been FAR OFF THE MARK. CO2 levels have continued to rise and temps have levelled off. Since at least 1998 the global temperature has remained static.
According to NASA the ice melt this year was extraordinary yet the satellite records show a marked drop in sea levels. Nearly a quarter of an inch in one year. That IS extraordinary. The normal rate of increase for the last 100 years has been 2mm per year.
It is a sad fact that climatology has prostituted itself for monetary gain and not to help those who truly need it. There are thousands of reclamation projects that could have been funded by the money wasted in AGW "research". All sorts of polluted areas could be repaired, new technologies could have been developed, but no, they want to keep reseaching whale farts.
Stupidity and avarice on a grand scale.
Gadawg77 knows all 7 steps of the scientific method. Are you challenging his superior knowledge??
The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?
The Navy said that man-made global warming caused the rise in sea levels? Do you have a link to this wonderous statement?
CERN proposes otherwise.
CERN very much knows that it IS a science.
CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised' ? The Register
NewsRoomAmerica.com - CERN: Global Warming Caused by Sun
Sun Causes Climate Change Shock Telegraph Blogs
I'll cite as many as you want, but CERN clearly respects this as a science, not as political hocus pocus.
I'm sorry, but just because you are politically biased, doesn't mean you can simply cover your eyes and ears and shout lalala.
Director General of CERN, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, downplayed the results, however, in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.
"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," he said. "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."
WHy dont you?
The fact is that the scientific method requires reproducible results to be fact. The anthro global warming jihadists have not and cannot provide that. They have gone so far as to make up data. That is fact.
When people start trotting out their credentials they've lost the debate.
Thanks for playing.
WHy dont you?
The fact is that the scientific method requires reproducible results to be fact. The anthro global warming jihadists have not and cannot provide that. They have gone so far as to make up data. That is fact.
When people start trotting out their credentials they've lost the debate.
Thanks for playing.
You realize your entire participation in this thread has consisted of you ducking (fair) questions and responses and tossing out insults.
As someone who claims to be an authotiry on the scientific method and how this all works, you should have no problem in providing peer reviewed and published work. In fact, that would be the kind of thing that would make you absolutely giddy. I suspect you don't even understand how peer review works.
I only state that, because you could have answered my request with a simply Google search. So either you don't know what the hell "peer review" means or you are simply being an asshole. Either way, it doesn't bolster confidence in your opinion.
To respond to your request, here is a published article (in a scientific journal) about the abundance of peer reviewed documents supporting climate change. To be clear, it is OPED, but you can track back on the citations to find the actual peer reviewed work:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
I also find it perplexing that you claim to be all about the science and dismiss credentials. Credentials are everything in the scientific world. It's what separates the relative worth of the words of someone who knows what they are talking about from assholes like you that obviously don't. To be clear, I have absolutely no credentials when it comes to climate change. I merely states that I have a background in the health sciences which *shockingly* also utilizes the scientific method and would love to talk about the scientific process with you.
Phototonic actually does have credentials in this matter. If you've been paying any attention he hasn't jumped on the "warmer" or "anti-warmer" band wagon. He merely wants to discuss this in a scientific and logical manner and you have ignored/insulted him too.
This is why you and your colleagues don't get the idea of consensus. The field of science isn't some great democracy where everyone with an opinion gets a vote. Rather, it's experts discussing the facts and data that they or their peers have produced and coming to logical conclusions. Your opinion on the matter means shit to the experts.
However, when it comes to policy, it obviously does, which is why people like you are targeted by the right wing talking heads to facilitate deregulation of the very corporations that pay the talking heads. It's a "swell racket". They know they don't have to stand up to scientific consensus or the scientific method. They just have to win the opinion of the scientifically illiterate majority of Americans to protect their wallet.
On a smaller scale, this is what was attempted with "intelligent design" being taught as an "equivalent theory" to evolution. That is a subject I know much more about and am always more than happy to discuss.
Now continue on with your insults and ignoring simple requests. You are a credit to your side.
WHy dont you?
The fact is that the scientific method requires reproducible results to be fact. The anthro global warming jihadists have not and cannot provide that. They have gone so far as to make up data. That is fact.
When people start trotting out their credentials they've lost the debate.
Thanks for playing.
You realize your entire participation in this thread has consisted of you ducking (fair) questions and responses and tossing out insults.
As someone who claims to be an authotiry on the scientific method and how this all works, you should have no problem in providing peer reviewed and published work. In fact, that would be the kind of thing that would make you absolutely giddy. I suspect you don't even understand how peer review works.
I only state that, because you could have answered my request with a simply Google search. So either you don't know what the hell "peer review" means or you are simply being an asshole. Either way, it doesn't bolster confidence in your opinion.
To respond to your request, here is a published article (in a scientific journal) about the abundance of peer reviewed documents supporting climate change. To be clear, it is OPED, but you can track back on the citations to find the actual peer reviewed work:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
I also find it perplexing that you claim to be all about the science and dismiss credentials. Credentials are everything in the scientific world. It's what separates the relative worth of the words of someone who knows what they are talking about from assholes like you that obviously don't. To be clear, I have absolutely no credentials when it comes to climate change. I merely states that I have a background in the health sciences which *shockingly* also utilizes the scientific method and would love to talk about the scientific process with you.
Phototonic actually does have credentials in this matter. If you've been paying any attention he hasn't jumped on the "warmer" or "anti-warmer" band wagon. He merely wants to discuss this in a scientific and logical manner and you have ignored/insulted him too.
This is why you and your colleagues don't get the idea of consensus. The field of science isn't some great democracy where everyone with an opinion gets a vote. Rather, it's experts discussing the facts and data that they or their peers have produced and coming to logical conclusions. Your opinion on the matter means shit to the experts.
However, when it comes to policy, it obviously does, which is why people like you are targeted by the right wing talking heads to facilitate deregulation of the very corporations that pay the talking heads. It's a "swell racket". They know they don't have to stand up to scientific consensus or the scientific method. They just have to win the opinion of the scientifically illiterate majority of Americans to protect their wallet.
On a smaller scale, this is what was attempted with "intelligent design" being taught as an "equivalent theory" to evolution. That is a subject I know much more about and am always more than happy to discuss.
Now continue on with your insults and ignoring simple requests. You are a credit to your side.
Yep, and if you are willing to converse with me on matters of physics, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.
You realize your entire participation in this thread has consisted of you ducking (fair) questions and responses and tossing out insults.
As someone who claims to be an authotiry on the scientific method and how this all works, you should have no problem in providing peer reviewed and published work. In fact, that would be the kind of thing that would make you absolutely giddy. I suspect you don't even understand how peer review works.
I only state that, because you could have answered my request with a simply Google search. So either you don't know what the hell "peer review" means or you are simply being an asshole. Either way, it doesn't bolster confidence in your opinion.
To respond to your request, here is a published article (in a scientific journal) about the abundance of peer reviewed documents supporting climate change. To be clear, it is OPED, but you can track back on the citations to find the actual peer reviewed work:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
I also find it perplexing that you claim to be all about the science and dismiss credentials. Credentials are everything in the scientific world. It's what separates the relative worth of the words of someone who knows what they are talking about from assholes like you that obviously don't. To be clear, I have absolutely no credentials when it comes to climate change. I merely states that I have a background in the health sciences which *shockingly* also utilizes the scientific method and would love to talk about the scientific process with you.
Phototonic actually does have credentials in this matter. If you've been paying any attention he hasn't jumped on the "warmer" or "anti-warmer" band wagon. He merely wants to discuss this in a scientific and logical manner and you have ignored/insulted him too.
This is why you and your colleagues don't get the idea of consensus. The field of science isn't some great democracy where everyone with an opinion gets a vote. Rather, it's experts discussing the facts and data that they or their peers have produced and coming to logical conclusions. Your opinion on the matter means shit to the experts.
However, when it comes to policy, it obviously does, which is why people like you are targeted by the right wing talking heads to facilitate deregulation of the very corporations that pay the talking heads. It's a "swell racket". They know they don't have to stand up to scientific consensus or the scientific method. They just have to win the opinion of the scientifically illiterate majority of Americans to protect their wallet.
On a smaller scale, this is what was attempted with "intelligent design" being taught as an "equivalent theory" to evolution. That is a subject I know much more about and am always more than happy to discuss.
Now continue on with your insults and ignoring simple requests. You are a credit to your side.
Yep, and if you are willing to converse with me on matters of physics, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.
As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.
At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.
It's usually simply amusing to me. But I do research evolution quite a lot so I do consider myself well educated (but not an expert) on the topic. Expert I reserve for someone who makes a living in that field, I make a living in the field of Astrophysics, cosmology and quantum mechanics.
A problem I've noticed with med students and physics is they attempt to memorize everything, this is a mistake as physics doesn't work by memorization of equations and etc. In fact, many of the greatest physicists have very bad memory.
The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?
The Navy said that man-made global warming caused the rise in sea levels? Do you have a link to this wonderous statement?
Didn't claim that. We can read in Georgia.
Navy states there IS GLOBAL WARMING GOING ON, and you deny it.
So which is it Mr. Wishy Washy.
Are you now admitting there IS global warming going on?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
The United States Navy issued a report last year on the rising seas at Naval Station Norfolk and the rising seas there. They cite global warming as the cause.
Of course everyone knows that the United States Navy and their Admirals are all left leaning liberals motivated by cash.
And get this: Just as soon as the report came out the goon squads found where decades ago a Navy Admiral went to work for the NOAA. They used that to claim that the current Navy Admirals were motivated by a possible future job at NOAA and that is why they issued the scientific report as fact and made their recomendations accordingly.
Are people really this stupid? To believe that THE THOUSANDS of scientific studies conducted on this are ALL motivated by greed and the results ARE ALL junk science?
Pretty much yeah. Billions and billions of dollars are riding on the continued alarmism models. To date, not a single prediction made by any computer model has been correct. They have all been FAR OFF THE MARK. CO2 levels have continued to rise and temps have levelled off. Since at least 1998 the global temperature has remained static.
According to NASA the ice melt this year was extraordinary yet the satellite records show a marked drop in sea levels. Nearly a quarter of an inch in one year. That IS extraordinary. The normal rate of increase for the last 100 years has been 2mm per year.
It is a sad fact that climatology has prostituted itself for monetary gain and not to help those who truly need it. There are thousands of reclamation projects that could have been funded by the money wasted in AGW "research". All sorts of polluted areas could be repaired, new technologies could have been developed, but no, they want to keep reseaching whale farts.
Stupidity and avarice on a grand scale.
So you are claiming that the rising sea levels at Naval Station Norfolk and the tens of millions of damage there was caused by a "computer model".
Rick Perry could use one of those computer programs. There is a drought going on in Texas.
Your claim that the US Navy is using fraud to get $$$ is not unusual for me to hear. My nephew was asking about the Easter Bunny just yesterday. He wants candy.
You realize your entire participation in this thread has consisted of you ducking (fair) questions and responses and tossing out insults.
As someone who claims to be an authotiry on the scientific method and how this all works, you should have no problem in providing peer reviewed and published work. In fact, that would be the kind of thing that would make you absolutely giddy. I suspect you don't even understand how peer review works.
I only state that, because you could have answered my request with a simply Google search. So either you don't know what the hell "peer review" means or you are simply being an asshole. Either way, it doesn't bolster confidence in your opinion.
To respond to your request, here is a published article (in a scientific journal) about the abundance of peer reviewed documents supporting climate change. To be clear, it is OPED, but you can track back on the citations to find the actual peer reviewed work:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
I also find it perplexing that you claim to be all about the science and dismiss credentials. Credentials are everything in the scientific world. It's what separates the relative worth of the words of someone who knows what they are talking about from assholes like you that obviously don't. To be clear, I have absolutely no credentials when it comes to climate change. I merely states that I have a background in the health sciences which *shockingly* also utilizes the scientific method and would love to talk about the scientific process with you.
Phototonic actually does have credentials in this matter. If you've been paying any attention he hasn't jumped on the "warmer" or "anti-warmer" band wagon. He merely wants to discuss this in a scientific and logical manner and you have ignored/insulted him too.
This is why you and your colleagues don't get the idea of consensus. The field of science isn't some great democracy where everyone with an opinion gets a vote. Rather, it's experts discussing the facts and data that they or their peers have produced and coming to logical conclusions. Your opinion on the matter means shit to the experts.
However, when it comes to policy, it obviously does, which is why people like you are targeted by the right wing talking heads to facilitate deregulation of the very corporations that pay the talking heads. It's a "swell racket". They know they don't have to stand up to scientific consensus or the scientific method. They just have to win the opinion of the scientifically illiterate majority of Americans to protect their wallet.
On a smaller scale, this is what was attempted with "intelligent design" being taught as an "equivalent theory" to evolution. That is a subject I know much more about and am always more than happy to discuss.
Now continue on with your insults and ignoring simple requests. You are a credit to your side.
Yep, and if you are willing to converse with me on matters of physics, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.
As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.
At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.
Yep, and if you are willing to converse with me on matters of physics, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.
As a medical student, I'd be woefully outgunned. Simple Algebra based physics was my worst subject as a premed. Though, I wish I had paid more attention to the connection between physics and physiology.
At any rate, I frequent science topics on this board. Usually about evolution. It's always annoying to watch people who have no understanding (or interest to understand) the scientific process act like they are experts in the field.
Yes, it is. As a PhD in geology I find it astonishing that supposedly thinking people can believe the pronouncments of a group of scientists, and I use the term very loosely here, who have perverted the very meaning of peer review. It is not science to prevent publication of studies that contradict the current paradigm. That is the equivalent of the Catholic Church's attack on Gallileo.
If the climatologists methods of dealing with dissent were used 50 years ago the theory of plate tectonics would still be heresy. You claim to be all about the science and you forget that science is not about "consensus" science is about the quest for knowledge through the observation of physical phenomena.
Climatology is based almost wholly on the observations of computer models. Computer models that are unable to re-create the weather that occured 5 days ago. Just think about that. The scientific method states that first you develop a hypothesis, prepare an experiment or observe the physical world to gather evidence that supports your hypothesis
interpret the data and present your case. The computer models ARE the climatologists experiment. They have never predicted anything correctly to date. They and the media and the un-educated believe the computer models as if they were observations of the physical world and they are not.
They are imaginary constructions of what the climatologists believe will happen. And they have never worked yet. Until they can recreate what has allready occured they are useless as instruments of prediction. That is a simple unarguable fact. At least it is to a good scientist.
