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.
Uh-huh.....And if your research contravenes what the "peers" doing the reviewing have convinced themselves of what the facts are, what are you chances of getting published??The fact that you'd even suggest the vast majority of scientists can't get their work published is absurd at face value. If you don't get your work published, you will quickly not have a job.
Somewhere between slim and none is my bet.
PROVE the graph provided is wrong you dumb shit. Or explain how a region you claim will lose its ice did not lose it in the 20-40 time period when the temperature was higher and for a longer period of time.
I understand your anger! It is frustrating when a GW supporter is presented with factual evidence and they revert back to estimated studies as a means of arguement.
The temperature graphs are not fact - they are irrefutable truth that the arctic was warmer in the recent past as well as the more distant past. That the earth's temperatures are very much cyclical, the causes of which are extremely complicated and near-impossible to predict.
And yet, people like Chris persist in ignorant comments of absolutes that are based upon conjecture and not fact.
Kinda sad the discussion has to be like that...
How do we know the evidence is "factual" when the author doesn't even tell us where it came from?
Riiiiight...So you constantly have to make up new crap that comports with the crap that the rest of the "peers" made up to comport with the last bunch of made-up crap......And so on and so on....If your research proves what is already accepted as proven without adding anything else, you have a far lower chance of getting published.
You seem to be arguing that simultaneously a) only those who can get published can hold jobs in research science b) the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in research can't get published. You can't have it both ways, those are contradictory statements.
I understand your anger! It is frustrating when a GW supporter is presented with factual evidence and they revert back to estimated studies as a means of arguement.
The temperature graphs are not fact - they are irrefutable truth that the arctic was warmer in the recent past as well as the more distant past. That the earth's temperatures are very much cyclical, the causes of which are extremely complicated and near-impossible to predict.
And yet, people like Chris persist in ignorant comments of absolutes that are based upon conjecture and not fact.
Kinda sad the discussion has to be like that...
How do we know the evidence is "factual" when the author doesn't even tell us where it came from?
You are unfamiliar with Jones et al?
For God's sake how can you even come in here and attempt to comment on this information then????
Here is a primer - the language can get a bit technical by Steve, but he is on the mark here. Basically, all of these so called studies are simply updated variations on the same pre-formed sets of data in order to support a pre-determined conclusion.
Very similar to what Steig did with his Antarctic study that gave a black eye to not only Steig, but the UW and Nature.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4866
Riiiiight...So you constantly have to make up new crap that comports with the crap that the rest of the "peers" made up to comport with the last bunch of made-up crap......And so on and so on....If your research proves what is already accepted as proven without adding anything else, you have a far lower chance of getting published.
You seem to be arguing that simultaneously a) only those who can get published can hold jobs in research science b) the overwhelming majority of scientists who work in research can't get published. You can't have it both ways, those are contradictory statements.
Scientists aren't any less subject to back-slapping cliquish behavior than any other bunch of group thinkers.
How do we know the evidence is "factual" when the author doesn't even tell us where it came from?
You are unfamiliar with Jones et al?
For God's sake how can you even come in here and attempt to comment on this information then????
Here is a primer - the language can get a bit technical by Steve, but he is on the mark here. Basically, all of these so called studies are simply updated variations on the same pre-formed sets of data in order to support a pre-determined conclusion.
Very similar to what Steig did with his Antarctic study that gave a black eye to not only Steig, but the UW and Nature.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4866
Jones et al isn't cited as the source of the chart in question, so I don't see your point. In fact the author doesn't cite a single source.
The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
Why?
You've repeated that yapping point, over and over and over and over again.....Argumentum ad nauseum.The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
Why?
You are unfamiliar with Jones et al?
For God's sake how can you even come in here and attempt to comment on this information then????
Here is a primer - the language can get a bit technical by Steve, but he is on the mark here. Basically, all of these so called studies are simply updated variations on the same pre-formed sets of data in order to support a pre-determined conclusion.
Very similar to what Steig did with his Antarctic study that gave a black eye to not only Steig, but the UW and Nature.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4866
Jones et al isn't cited as the source of the chart in question, so I don't see your point. In fact the author doesn't cite a single source.
It isn't?
What chart in question are you referring to?
You've repeated that yapping point, over and over and over and over again.....Argumentum ad nauseum.The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
Why?
Yet, you conveniently ignore the evidence I've posted, and will post yet again, that the current state of Earf's magnetosphere is weaker that it has been in centuries.
Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
Please, Chrissy, tell us about how National Geographic is in on the Vast Right-Wing Denier Conspiracy!!!!
Please.....Bring it.
Uh-huh..
Who did the "peer review"??
Busted....
The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
Why?
You've repeated that yapping point, over and over and over and over again.....Argumentum ad nauseum.The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
Why?
Yet, you conveniently ignore the evidence I've posted, and will post yet again, that the current state of Earf's magnetosphere is weaker that it has been in centuries.
Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
Please, Chrissy, tell us about how National Geographic is in on the Vast Right-Wing Denier Conspiracy!!!!
Please.....Bring it.
You've repeated that yapping point, over and over and over and over again.....Argumentum ad nauseum.The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the ice continues to melt.
Why?
Yet, you conveniently ignore the evidence I've posted, and will post yet again, that the current state of Earf's magnetosphere is weaker that it has been in centuries.
Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
Please, Chrissy, tell us about how National Geographic is in on the Vast Right-Wing Denier Conspiracy!!!!
Please.....Bring it.
Strawman, completely irrelevant, deniers are worse than AGW paranoid preachers.
You've repeated that yapping point, over and over and over and over again.....Argumentum ad nauseum.
Yet, you conveniently ignore the evidence I've posted, and will post yet again, that the current state of Earf's magnetosphere is weaker that it has been in centuries.
Earth's Core, Magnetic Field Changing Fast, Study Says
Please, Chrissy, tell us about how National Geographic is in on the Vast Right-Wing Denier Conspiracy!!!!
Please.....Bring it.
Strawman, completely irrelevant, deniers are worse than AGW paranoid preachers.
Um ... yeah ... as I always say, it's easy to make a con true if you ignore all facts and science except those that support your position, the same way Goreans do.
