- 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: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Wow, employer funded work expenses, what a concept
I'm sorry you're having trouble following the conversation. I'll try to bring it all together.
AU positioned that science can be flawed if the sponsor for the study is trying to protect his bottom line. I informed him that pro-AGW funding is many times greater hence it's not good for his argument. You jumped in building a strawman for what the scientists leanings are. I then try to inform you that the study's funding was the issue AU positioned. Are you tracking now?
2
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:05 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Why does publishing platform invalidate the data?
It invalidates the peer review process because there effectively isn't one.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I don't really see the relevance of that.
quote:
the "scientists" they quote, which in large part are financed by the petrochemical industry.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:06 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:06 pm to C
quote:
AU positioned that science can be flawed if the sponsor for the study is trying to protect his bottom line. I informed him that pro-AGW funding is many times greater hence it's not good for his argument.
If so called 'pro-AGW' comes from non-profit or government entities, then your counter-argument is seriously flawed.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:07 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
It invalidates the peer review process because there effectively isn't one.
First, we can say the same about most of the climate journals from what we know from the Climategate emails.
Secondly, in cases where data and method are fully disclosed... the information is for all to see. Not simply the peer reviewers. That's actually better and more open to scrutniy than what is typically accepted at most journals.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:07 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
the "scientists" they quote, which in large part are financed by the petrochemical industry.
I don't really see the relevance of that, either. I didn't even say it.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:07 pm to Revelator
quote:
You are very good a regurgitating things that others have written and using others research as your own. I've studied every one of the things that you've mentioned above and know full well what skeptics believe. I would have some serious doubts about my beliefs if like you, I found myself more often in the unbelievers and skeptics camp than of Christians.
I consider Catholics Christians. I see you don't. I get that.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:08 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Then why are you attempting to provide examples of it?
I don't really see the relevance of that, either.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:What?
It invalidates the peer review process because there effectively isn't one.
The location of a publication prevents peer review?
How exactly does that work?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:09 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
First, we can say the same about most of the climate journals from what we know from the Climategate emails.
You can say whatever you like about anything I suppose.
quote:
Secondly, in cases where data and method are fully disclosed... the information is for all to see. Not simply the peer reviewers.
There are no peer reviewers. Maybe you didn't get that.
quote:Most journals are open to public scrutiny in addition to the scrutiny of the editorial staff and reviewers. Your suggestion that its somehow better to abandon the latter so long as we keep the former is utterly absurd.
That's actually better and more open to scrutniy than what is typically accepted at most journals.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:11 pm to Taxing Authority
The fact that you need examples of GW deniers being financed by big oil and your frequent use of emoticons to rebut anything related tells me all I need to know about your position. It's like arguing the Bible with Rev.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The location of a publication prevents peer review?
No, the lack of peer review prevents peer review.
quote:
How exactly does that work?
Its simple. You just don't do it.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:12 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:I've never to my knowledge ever seen any work from The Marshall Institute. Further, is there any evidence of a quid pro quo?
The Marshall institute received £51,000 from ExxonMobil for its "global climate change programme" in 2003 and an undisclosed sum this month.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:12 pm to Vegas Bengal
From your link:
Sounds like they were right.
And again these are all 5+ years old. All oil companies want a carbon tax to force coal out of existance. Whether they believe in AGW or not, their bottom lines would benefit for a carbon tax.
quote:
to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on.
Sounds like they were right.
And again these are all 5+ years old. All oil companies want a carbon tax to force coal out of existance. Whether they believe in AGW or not, their bottom lines would benefit for a carbon tax.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:14 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Or you could actually read them...
You can say whatever you like about anything I suppose.
quote:
There are no peer reviewers. Maybe you didn't get that.
quote:You really should read the Climategate emails.
Most journals are open to public scrutiny in addition to the scrutiny of the editorial staff and reviewers
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:As is yours that peer review is relegated to a prepublication timeframe, and is conducted solely self-contained by members of the publication's staff.
Your suggestion that its somehow better to abandon the latter so long as we keep the former is utterly absurd.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:15 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Or you could actually read them...
You mean I can read blogs about them that direct my conclusions.
quote:
You really should read the Climategate emails.
I think you should read them and get back to us.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:16 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
If so called 'pro-AGW' comes from non-profit or government entities, then your counter-argument is seriously flawed
You think big govt doesn't get bigger and have more control under the auspice of needing to protect the environment?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:16 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:So you are saying I should accept an idea without evidence? Interesting...
The fact that you need examples of GW deniers being financed by big oil
Page 10 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News