I thought you guys were "winning"...?

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
And that was one of the studies we dissected. I don't intend on demonstrating why it's nonsense, again. It's too bad you weren't reading when it happened.
You should be able to do it yourself if you actually read the papers, though (not just the abstracts).
After all, that is one of the criticisms for such "reviews of literature". Abstracts can be misleading since they are the "selling" point, meant to suck you into reading the paper. That's another reason why those "reviews of abstracts" are laughable since the scientists involved won't publish their thoughts and opinions in them, saving it for "Discussion of Results" sections.

I can give you a tip, too, for discerning which papers have something conclusive. When reading abstracts, if you see something such as "and we found xxxxx to be accurate to +/- XXXX with a chi-square of XXX," then you can be more sure the study itself has some concrete experiment involved with modelling of hypotheses.
If the paper uses subjective language to imply something in the abstract, it is probably a light-weight piece, if not garbage.
Click to expand...
It's one of several studies which compiles thousands of studies regarding the subject.

Deniers are having trouble linking anything. I linked peer reviewed studies about peer reviewed studies.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Are people still trying to state that the "97% meta-analysis" means 97% of scientists overall?

It was 97% of the 30-odd percent that actually took a definitive position.

Seriously as I've said before, I don't believe in ACC as it's described, it's too dramatic and the data-sets have little predictive value BUT if it can be a vehicle for ensuring huge new research grants for National Institutes of Science then I'm happy enough (carbon taxes are just bullshit anyways).

But lying about the 97% does more harm to your side than anything the anti-side could do or say.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I wouldn't worry about it too much, the oil will run out and with it our way of life. Then the world might be able to heal itself after a few thousand more years once Fukushima quiets down.

Also I find it hilarious that the point being made here is how environmental groups are giving their money to the people who are studying the problem.

If it were me I would be giving my money to people who are trying to solve the problem.
Click to expand...
What problem? Our Orbit. That's a tough one.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Does anyone have a single peer reviewed paper on the physics behind the CO2 induced greenhouse effect?

Because there isn't one.
Click to expand...
Well, the physics are well known....in a bell jar. Those are the only experiment that have been done, to my knowledge....very small and static experiments.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Still waiting for something peer reviewed concluding that man is not the cause of climate change. So far all I hear is that "it's just a theory".
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The papers on the list argue against alarmism. Basically they don't conclude anything.
Click to expand...
This is a strawman argument as the list not only includes papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW but also Alarmism. Thus, a paper does not have to argue against AGW to still support skeptic arguments against alarmist conclusions (e.g. Hurricanes are getting worse due to global warming). Valid skeptic arguments include that AGW is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Well then it should not be hard to cite one study that supports the skeptic argument. Just one study, not an article that is not peer reviewed claiming there are hundreds of studies, one study.
 
travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Well then it should not be hard to cite one study that supports the skeptic argument. Just one study, not an article that is not peer reviewed claiming there are hundreds of studies, one study.
Click to expand...
He's cited his little shit stain of a site before. If I remember correctly, 1 guy wrote 70 of the papers and the funding comes from Exon or something. Given the criticisms he levied against the cite you supplied, it's certainly an interesting, if not absolutely retarded way to go for a rebuttal.

They are apparently anti weed on popular technology too.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/04/150-scientific-studies-showing-dangers.html

Classic Beenthere.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
not an article that is not peer reviewed claiming there are hundreds of studies, one study.
Click to expand...
The list is a resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
The list is a resource not a scholarly paper. Bibliographic resources are not peer-reviewed but curated by an editor. They are used as aids in locating information, in this case peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments.
Click to expand...
So in other words, he cited fuck all...
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
He's cited his little shit stain of a site before. If I remember correctly, 1 guy wrote 70 of the papers and the funding comes from Exon or something. Given the criticisms he levied against the cite you supplied, it's certainly an interesting, if not absolutely retarded way to go for a rebuttal.
Click to expand...
Cherry picking the most prolific authors as representative of the entire list is misleading. ISI Highly Cited Researchers such as Sherwood B. Idso and Richard S. Lindzen will naturally be well represented on the list. It has been independently verified by Needlebase that there are over 1500 unique authors on the list.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
So in other words, he cited fuck all...
Click to expand...
Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so.
The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, I supplied 3 citations. 1 was to an article which put forth an argument as to why consensus matters, the other two were peer reviewed studies, each of which compiled thousands of peer reviewed studies on the subject and pointed to a vast majority of those which were conclusive supporting man made climate change.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Every counted paper on the list is checked that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and (if possible) that the specific document type is peer-reviewed. Critics have always been asked to provide evidence to support their allegations, yet repeatedly fail to do so.
The list also includes supplemental papers, which are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. These are proceeded by an asterisk ( * ) and italicized so they should not be confused with the counted papers. There is no requirement for supplemental papers to be peer-reviewed as they have no affect on the list count.
Click to expand...
So then.


It should be easy to find ONE peer reviewed study supporting the denial position and not simply an inconclusive study which "doesn't support alarmism".
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
So then.


It should be easy to find ONE peer reviewed study supporting the denial position and not simply an inconclusive study which "doesn't support alarmism".
Click to expand...
Did you look at the list?

Global Warming: A Reduced Threat?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 73, Issue 10, pp. 1563–1577, October 1992)
- Patrick J. Michaels, David E. Stooksbury


A dissenting view on global climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden



Science does not support consensus' on climate change
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 78-85, February 1994)
- Henry R. Linden


Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer

I only went through a few of the THOUSANDS of papers provided.
You didn't look at the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top