APP - Science Denial on the Rise

Mott the Hoople said:
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.
Click to expand...

Who is the PhD?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.
Click to expand...

Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
Click to expand...


blah blah blah.

Bottom line, the raw data is still necessary for adequate scientific review.
 
Gotta love crypiss saying raw data doesn't matter and that peer reviewers never ask for data then he goes on to say that peer review makes sure the data is reproducible.

Hilarious!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh please. You're a legend in your own mind. The only one who believes that is you. Hell three fourths of the board was roaring in laughter at how I crushed you in discussions of science. Even our resident PhD level scientist thought you were clueless about science. Hell even Watermark has shown more scientific acumen then you. I'll give you credit though. You're not as clueless as Dixie when it comes to science. Not saying much granted, but it is true.
Click to expand...
how could you have "crushed" me in debate when you spent none of your time debating and spent all your time bragging that you were so smart you didn't have to debate......since then you've haven't dared respond to any of my posts because you would demonstrate that you actually know fuck all about science......you're all brag with nothing to back it up.....
 
Cypress said:
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters. The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
Click to expand...

lol....you must be the "three fourths of the board" he was referring to.....I got news for you.....your "ringer" is a fraud.....
 
Cypress said:
The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
Click to expand...
And how the hell do you know if their data set is reproducible unless you know what the data set is? If you perform a set of experiments and withhold the results, only giving out your conclusions, how does another scientist know if their experiment is reproducing the same results?

Your argument is pure bullshit.
 
tinfoil said:
Gotta love crypiss saying raw data doesn't matter and that peer reviewers never ask for data then he goes on to say that peer review makes sure the data is reproducible.

Hilarious!
Click to expand...

Yeah. He has the cognitive abilities of lint.
 
tom prendergast said:
I consider myself to be a sceptic but I will point out what is happening in Melbourne.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100112/tod-summer-in-an-aussie-city-34c-at-midn-870a197.html
Click to expand...

I'll remind you that weather isn't the same thing as climate. Austraulia having a heatwave during its summer is hardly news.

Also, the atlantic nultidecadal oscillation (AMO) is currently heading into a negative phase, which historically has been associated with higher than normal temps is the southern hemisphere. When the AMO is positive, there are lower temps found in the southern hemisphere associated with the AMO.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/recent-drop-in-amo.html
 
tinfoil said:
I'll remind you that weather isn't the same thing as climate. Austraulia having a heatwave during its summer is hardly news.

Also, the atlantic nultidecadal oscillation (AMO) is currently heading into a negative phase, which historically has been associated with higher than normal temps is the southern hemisphere. When the AMO is positive, there are lower temps found in the southern hemisphere associated with the AMO.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/recent-drop-in-amo.html
Click to expand...

Don't you think it is ironic that you are using the same argument about weather and climate that is stated by AGW espousers?
 
tom prendergast said:
Don't you think it is ironic that you are using the same argument about weather and climate that is stated by AGW espousers?
Click to expand...



LOL it is ironic that every heatwave, including the one you referenced, is used to make the case for warming.

examples:
Australian Heat Wave To Last Six Days, Signaling Global Warming
http://www.redorbit.com/news/scienc..._six_days_signaling_global_warming/index.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x184529
Australian heatwave sign of climate change


I could list dozens more without effort.

So, yes, I do find it ironic, and though I agree with the statement that climate does not equal weather, we all know how weather is used to make the case for warming, so you should take my initial use of the meme to be mocking its use.
 
Cypress said:
Another awesome thread with the armchair science experts and college dropouts lecturing you on the scientific method. I think you and thorn are the only ones I would trust to be qualified and knowledgeable about science. I'd defer to Topspin on stocks, and I'd defer to cawacko on Porn. But Letting a teabagger play with science is like giving dynamite to a baby - the consequences are disasterous.

LOL @ scientists giving all their raw data to peer reviewers. I actually am quite familiar and have first hand experience with scientific peer review, and I'm not aware than handing over all the raw data to peer reviewers is common practice. I've never done it. Peer reviewers don't have time to pour through reams of raw data. Their job, in my experience, is to review your methods, to see if your conclusions are substantiated by the experimental results, make sure your data and results are reproducible, and evaluate if one took into account alternative hypotheses.

There's nothing magical about raw data. Raw data almost always has to be culled, transformed, or discarded depending on the experimental parameters.
Click to expand...


The most important thing about data is that it's reproducible what was done to cull it or transform it (and why) and its documented where and how it was obtained. This is what peer revewers would and should check for, because a clear documentation of methodology and reproducibility is what the scientific method and peer review strive for.
Click to expand...

LOL... So HOW dear gumby can a reviewer be able to reproduce what was done to cull or transform the data if they DO NOT POSSESS the RAW DATA?
 
Good Luck said:
And how the hell do you know if their data set is reproducible unless you know what the data set is? If you perform a set of experiments and withhold the results, only giving out your conclusions, how does another scientist know if their experiment is reproducing the same results?

Your argument is pure bullshit.
Click to expand...

Which is par for the course for him. He likes to take a rightwing nut and project their views onto every Republican, then he pretends he is enlightened on the topic.

In cases like this, where the topic is way over his head, he tends to contradict himself. Though not usually all in one post. Seriously... he 'LOL at the suggestion that the raw data be supplied to reviewers' only to follow it up with 'the reviewers must have the data to reproduce the results'.

Pity him. He is a lemming and a flat earther... he just cannot fathom that Saint Al lied to him about global warming.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how could you have "crushed" me in debate when you spent none of your time debating and spent all your time bragging that you were so smart you didn't have to debate......since then you've haven't dared respond to any of my posts because you would demonstrate that you actually know fuck all about science......you're all brag with nothing to back it up.....
Click to expand...
I crushed you in the debate by using cogent arguments based on fact and empirical observation. Mean while you played "Ring Around The Rosey".

Now don't forget. Homology creates phylogeny! LOL LOL LOL
 
Superfreak said:
Which is par for the course for him. He likes to take a rightwing nut and project their views onto every Republican, then he pretends he is enlightened on the topic.

In cases like this, where the topic is way over his head, he tends to contradict himself. Though not usually all in one post. Seriously... he 'LOL at the suggestion that the raw data be supplied to reviewers' only to follow it up with 'the reviewers must have the data to reproduce the results'.

Pity him. He is a lemming and a flat earther... he just cannot fathom that Saint Al lied to him about global warming.
Click to expand...
St. Al? What the hell happened to St. Leibowitz? Damnit, I demand a recount!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top