- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nearly ALL current global warming is fabricated: peer reviewed study finds
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:45 am to Sasquatch Smash
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:45 am to Sasquatch Smash
quote:It was reviewed by some engineers and published in the prestigious Breitbart dot com science section
Reviewed by, and published in, which journal?
1
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:46 am to Iosh
Another fail.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:47 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist, AMS Fellow
Prove it.
quote:Now he's not some unqualified hack, but it's absolutely unethical to present oneself as a Dr., especially in the relevant professional capacity, when one is not.
Joe spent three years completing doctoral coursework in Air Resources at NYU but the school of Engineering and Science closed its doors before Joe could write his dissertation.
Now maybe he didn't write the title pages with the credentials, so that may be someone else's error. But if he is not a hack, then he will have that corrected.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 11:49 am
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:This isn't just as simple though as 1=1. It takes knowledge and experience to give an educated interpretation. The paper does not claim the data was manipulated. It states the data was adjusted which I'm sure many here will argue is the same thing but it is not. They even admit that the adjustments are necessary. They are arguing where the adjustments are valid. I think that is totally legitimate. I just wish it was by more legitimate scientists.
However, facts are facts regardless of who rolls them out. Manipulated data is manipulated data regardless of how many academic degrees one can claim.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:51 am to buckeye_vol
That doesn't prove anything. Has no tie date on it.
The guy could have finished his doctorate before his study was done.
You have no idea at this point.
The guy could have finished his doctorate before his study was done.
You have no idea at this point.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:51 am to Errerrerrwere
I'm not saying they didn't write the paper. Their credentials factor into how much I trust the analysis.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:51 am to Winkface
quote:What if the temperature record is actually quite robust and that's why only the crazies are attacking it?
They are arguing where the adjustments are valid. I think that is totally legitimate. I just wish it was by more legitimate scientists.
The qualified skeptics tend to stay out of the thermometer conspiracy ball pit and instead argue lukewarmer positions like low climate sensitivity.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:54 am to Winkface
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:54 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:Dude. He didn't finish it. He freely admits that he didn't finish it. He calls himself doctor because he got an honorary doctorate. That is what you should be laughing at.
The guy could have finished his doctorate before his study was done.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:55 am to Winkface
Yeah. Just said that, DOOD!
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:55 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
D'Aleo is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".[5] The declaration states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."[6]
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:55 am to Errerrerrwere
So you agree he shouldn't call himself Dr. when publishing scientific articles. Got it.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:55 am to Winkface
So, two doctors and an honorary doctor?
Lol. Yeah. Paper is shite.
Lol. Yeah. Paper is shite.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:56 am to Winkface
I haven't agreed with one thing you have said, assclown.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:58 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Paper is shite.
The paper is shite because of the methodology they use to come to their conclusion.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 11:59 am to Salmon
Like the scientific methodology of always adjusting the temp readings to fit your agenda?
Go fish.
Go fish.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:00 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Like the scientific methodology of always adjusting the temp readings to fit your agenda?
If this was true, maybe
quote:
Go fish.
The irony of this statement might be lost on you
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:00 pm to Iosh
I'm just saying on its surface, questioning the validity of adjustments is common and necessary in science, especially statistics. I will admit, though, that I don't know the scientific history of this particular question because I have not spent the time to read up on it. Maybe it has already been pretty much settled, I don't know. It is an ok question but having an engineer pose as a statistician and an honorary doctorate pose as an actual Dr. doesn't lead me to believing the results.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:01 pm to Salmon
But it is true.
Humorous. But certainly not ironic.
Humorous. But certainly not ironic.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:01 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
Peer reviewed doesn't mean anything
quote:
So, two doctors and an honorary doctor?
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News