Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report
- Thread starter Sunsettommy
- Start date
Have you read about the state of peer review lately?
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
If a peer reviewer or committee of reviewers disagrees with a finding, that would fall under:
offer an alternative analysis of the original investigation
as I stated.
Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 2,898
- 12,545
- 2,288
It can slow the increase in climate changeWhat made me and keeps me not a denier of AGW but a pretty strong skeptic of the so-called 'mainstream scientific opinion' about that is:
NO. ONE: Despite trillions of dollars poured into green energy project around the world, restrictions on our vehicles and appliances, prohibition of various activities that were once commonplace, attempted eradication of cows/beef products etc., etc., etc., the CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have not been changed/improved by a single particle. This calls into questions whether government controls and restrictions on our choices/opportunities/liberties can be justified.
NO. TWO: The climate scientists and their advocates are not living their own lives as if AGW/climate change is a problem. They still private jet all over the world to get together instead of videoconferencing which would seem to be the 'ethical' thing to do. They buy water front homes and enjoy other lifestyles that call into question their personal convictions that we have a serious climate problem. And they allow no opinion in their scientific groups that would call AGW into question.
NO. THREE: The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is not written by scientists but is written by political operatives who never recommend any course of action other than more government control over the people.
NO. FOUR: Going back to one of my old threads, even if we concede adding more than seven billion people to Planet Earth might actually affect global warming to some extent, there are more reasonable and practical ways to address that than impoverishing most of the human race. Link to that thread is here:
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activitiesscience.nasa.gov
It is a fools errand.
Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 2,898
- 12,545
- 2,288
Peer review is similar to consensus
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Was that a good idea or are you afraid to say?
In my opinion there are some risks involved.
I'll leave ya'all with it. I've at least been able to raise the bar a bit on having a discussion.
At least until some fukking no-mind turns this too into spam.
Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 2,898
- 12,545
- 2,288
The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.
Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change. School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Right...If you don't agree with the "peers" and the "consensus" you get blackballed.
Not similar, exactly the same.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
And "scientists" paid for by those who have a vested interest in totalitarianism fund your side, excluding each and every dissenting voice.
So FO.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,284
- 14,000
- 2,400
- Thread starter
- #93
Zero science based statement as consensus is a political construct with many science consensus errors of the past that caused great harm and even killed many people, as this make clear, funny that it starts off with always wrong Ehrlich:
From Aliens Cause Global Warming speech,
Excerpt:
Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
LINK
red bolding mine
Challenging fukn assholes just turns the discussion to shit faster. Like as if one of them knows what math is?
Stay in your own lane.
Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 2,898
- 12,545
- 2,288
I think it is a good idea. There have been some nuclear energy accidents but they have not produced high fatality events, except maybe for chernobyl, but the soviets did not seem to care about safety
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
It is similar only in that it can affect the perception of any given study. It can cause scholarly publications not to publish it, for example.
If your point is that peer review is a flawed method for determining which science is valid, I would strongly agree in the case of politically charged questions such as Anthropogenic Global Warming or gender dysphoria treatments for children.
Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 2,898
- 12,545
- 2,288
Peer review is the process where experts from a specific field or discipline evaluate the quality of a peer's research to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. It is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scholarly research
A highly prejudicial or politically motivated source is far less likely to provide competent information than is one that is actually seeking the facts and truth of something and that allows all points of view to be considered.
Stuartbirdan2
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2020
- 2,898
- 12,545
- 2,288
The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.
Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change. School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump said he ended the Congo-Rwanda war. He lied: Washington Post.- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
-
