View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mac
I think there is a clear difference between consultants (such as me these days) and scientists. I develop opinions, sometimes for legal venues, on the behalf of my clients. They are paying the bills. So, while I try to maintain impartial analysis, I know that it is not, totally, possible. This is different than a truly peer reviewed study. I am afraid most folks do not know this difference and assume every scientist has an agenda, or a sponsor, that is interested in skewing the results.
Anyone with ANY credential can become a quoted source with the accessibility to so many internet sites with agendas. It used to be only the very legitimate publications carried any weight, or provided any audience. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a bit of clarification on my not believing in "peer review".
Basically I do believe in that when it comes to studies that are below the radar, but if a study has become as politically charged as AGW has, there is no way that there can be an honest peer review. Encampments have been set long ago, with this issue, that prevents that from happening anymore.
And unfortunately, in this case, it has come down to governmental funding.
Sorry mac, that dog don't hunt, fleas and all. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry NW. I don't buy it! If I wanted to make a "splash" in the pond right now, and get my name out, the best way to do it would be with something that displaces the status quo. I would be searching for something that could turn the science on its ear not just repeating the mantra.
Have you even met any of the current crop of academics? I have two nephews in Phd programs in science and engineering. I find it laughable that either of these guys are bought and paid for by either side. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, you have the right to not buy anything. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17752 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
See how cool paranoia is? It allows you to reject any facts or ideas that don't fit within your belief structure, no matter the evidence. All you have to do is hum a few bars of "I Scare Myself." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pfffft! You'll never get over yourself mac, you're just a liberal dreamboy in your own mind. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the little world of American politics AGW is a political issue.
Much of climate research is done in other countries. In most cases science is not trumped by politics or religion in the rest of the world. That mental disease is most prevalent in the US and only risen to dangerous levels lately.
To a Danish or Indonesian climate researcher in Antarctica,the true facts in science have nothing to do with which party you belong to, or which church. Americans knew this not long ago.
Other countries still know this.
No gov. on earth wants the world to be headed for disaster and is paying big money to its scientists to fake the research.
In the US the funding for climate research has been provided by both political parties when they are in office.
On Talk radio they try to tie AGW research to Dems or Obama in some obscure way so you will " know" it is all a lie.
Simple folk enjoy Talk. The world is so easy to understand if you get your news there. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well said KC. Not being American, I wouldn't have dared say that.
Nor do I believe those working in the Russian Academy of Sciences are 'Mickey Mouse' scientists who are bought and paid for stooges. (No Al Gores, they.) Ywo of them, it seems, have now put their money where their mouths are in predicting solar driven Arctic cooling in but a few years ahead.
I cited a claim of theirs a while ago that their astronomy section had identified a discernable very slight warming phase on Mars, in line with the late 20th century Earth warming phase, which could only be attributed to increased solar output. (long term cycle.) It was a part of their claim that a cooling cycle was now imminent. (Affecting both Earth, and Mars, obviously.)
NASA, the only body with sufficient expertise to verify or deny this Mars claim (peer review) were unable to confirm or deny it. That doesn't make the claim invalid (or valid) but does show the limitations on relying solely on peer reviewing, especially in a subject such as global warming, where people are positively entrenched and locked in to 'their' sides 'facts.'
The clear point is that we don't have many years now to wait. The Academy scientists will either be proven foolish and wrong, or visionaries who stood out against the consensus scientists, and their absolute certainties. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17752 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
But GT, their winning or losing the bet proves nothing. As I have said, and few have apparently actually looked at the hundred year + time series, the long term data record shows three periods of cooling and a number of periods of rapid warming. That does not alter the overall trend upward. Betting on the length of a short cooling period (or more rapid heating period) during a long slow heating trend is a parlor trick. If you organize the sampling dishonestly, you can sample a sine curve and find an upward trend, a downward trend, or a straight line. That was the first lesson in numerical methods. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Mac, but it would make the consensus IPCC reports look irrelevant and damned silly, (not to mention the worlds Al Gores, who put their mouths where the money is) IF their prediction of a 100 year plus cooling phase proves to be correct! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|