Solar vs. Anthropogenic—Better Understanding of 20th Century Climate Change

Aoxomoxoa said:
I have spoken about CLOUD on here many times.
Click to expand...

And the response was, let me guess
A bush sucks
B rethuglicans havr court orders from 40 yrs ago about election
C oj look, a squirrel
D you are stupid while I can count to potato
R all of the above

they have real problems with science it seems. perhaps they didnt do well on school with it.
 
Celticguy said:
And the response was, let me guess
A bush sucks
B rethuglicans havr court orders from 40 yrs ago about election
C oj look, a squirrel
D you are stupid while I can count to potato
R all of the above

they have real problems with science it seems. perhaps they didnt do well on school with it.
Click to expand...

It tends to be "there is a consensus", "you are an oil shill" or "Exxon/Koch funded the study".
 
Celticguy said:
CERN has actual peer reviewed science demonstrating solar involvement.
Click to expand...
Peer review is often a joke.

Remember Dr. Hwang Woo Suk? He claimed in a peer reviewed magazine to have created human embryonic stem cells through cloning. All of his papers were peer reviewed yet all of his experiments were entirely fabricated. He never did it, never even tried. He simply made stuff up and got into peer reviewed magazines without a hitch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk
 
Damocles said:
Peer review is often a joke.

Remember Dr. Hwang Woo Suk? He claimed in a peer reviewed magazine to have created human embryonic stem cells through cloning. All of his papers were peer reviewed yet all of his experiments were entirely fabricated. He never did it, never even tried. He simply made stuff up and got into peer reviewed magazines without a hitch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk
Click to expand...

I am surprised that you are unaware of the CLOUD experiment and its exceedingly high profile nature. There is a whole world out there just waiting for a chance to discredit its results.

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-cern-cloud-climate.html
 
Damocles said:
Peer review is often a joke.

Remember Dr. Hwang Woo Suk? He claimed in a peer reviewed magazine to have created human embryonic stem cells through cloning. All of his papers were peer reviewed yet all of his experiments were entirely fabricated. He never did it, never even tried. He simply made stuff up and got into peer reviewed magazines without a hitch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk
Click to expand...
It is true that some have applied a rather lax form of peer review, ones that do not qualify by definition. The study behind the hockey stick is a good example. It fails imediately by never releasing the data that it might be peer reviewed. A gross error that anyone would accept the term peer review to be applied.
But there are few scientific organizations with as sterling a reputation as CERN. While they are better known over the last few years for their Haldron Collider, they have been the gold standard in Europe. And it was they, not Al Gore who invented the internet.
I figured with all the folks around here that fancy themselves science friendly discussion of science would have a baseline of familiarity to permit informed talk.
 
Celticguy said:
It is true that some have applied a rather lax form of peer review, ones that do not qualify by definition. The study behind the hockey stick is a good example. It fails imediately by never releasing the data that it might be peer reviewed. A gross error that anyone would accept the term peer review to be applied.
But there are few scientific organizations with as sterling a reputation as CERN. While they are better known over the last few years for their Haldron Collider, they have been the gold standard in Europe. And it was they, not Al Gore who invented the internet.
I figured with all the folks around here that fancy themselves science friendly discussion of science would have a baseline of familiarity to permit informed talk.
Click to expand...

Tim Berners-Lee worked for CERN when he invented the World Wide Web.
 
Celticguy said:
It is true that some have applied a rather lax form of peer review, ones that do not qualify by definition. The study behind the hockey stick is a good example. It fails imediately by never releasing the data that it might be peer reviewed. A gross error that anyone would accept the term peer review to be applied.
But there are few scientific organizations with as sterling a reputation as CERN. While they are better known over the last few years for their Haldron Collider, they have been the gold standard in Europe. And it was they, not Al Gore who invented the internet.
I figured with all the folks around here that fancy themselves science friendly discussion of science would have a baseline of familiarity to permit informed talk.
Click to expand...

Hence my statement, 'often a joke'... I didn't say always because sometimes it isn't useless repeating without verification. The problem we have is so many use it as a hammer... "This is peer reviewed!" Most of the time that is nothing, literally nothing, to do with verified or even checked....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top