- 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 2:52 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:52 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
As a often quoted quoted source... No. I have not seen them as a widely quotes source (makes sense). I did not recall them from the CR context. That is true.
I'm not exactly sure what kind of "widely quoted sources" you use. So far you have used any sources. But a climate denier who says they have never heard of S. Baliunas is almost like a physicist saying they've never heard of Einstein. She's a leading author in the field of climate denial. You're clearly entirely unfamiliar with any actual research on the matter and get all your ideas from bloggers.
quote:
you remain steadfastly devoted to the peer review publication as final arbiter of truth.
Can you read?
LINK
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 2:58 pm
1
Posted on 1/2/14 at 2:54 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Where did I defend that paper?
Is it not your opinion that Jones and other's criticisms of its publication were flawed? Make up your mind.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:05 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:So far... No one has made a scientific argument.
So far you have used any sources.
quote:If you say so... Not sure why you are saying I should be using someone that does flawed work as a source?
But a climate denier who says they have never heard of S. Baliunas is almost like a physicist saying they've never heard of Einstein.
quote:That would be a valid conclusion if she were the only one. However, she is not.
She's a leading author in the field of climate denial. You're clearly entirely unfamiliar with any actual research on the matter and get all your ideas from bloggers
quote:Fair point. But peer review isn't the only way of opening up work to scrutiny.
Can you read?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:08 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
If you say so... Not sure why you are saying I should be using someone that does flawed work as a source?
I'm saying you are lying if you claim to be well read in the area. Your knowledge must be limited to climategate blogs.
quote:
That would be a valid conclusion if she were the only one. However, she is not.
You can't even name a single scientist who you agree with.
quote:
Fair point. But peer review isn't the only way of opening up work to scrutiny.
I didn't say it was. THough it is the primary pre-publication means of doing it.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Jones criticisms aren't really the issue. Their tactics are the issue. Had that paper come to the "proper" conclusion it would have sailed through just like other had
Is it not your opinion that Jones and other's criticisms of its publication were flawed?
Do you think Borhmer-Christiansion is a liar?
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:11 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Nice try.
I'm saying you are lying if you claim to be well read in the area. Your knowledge must be limited to climategate blogs.
quote:When did you ask?
You can't even name a single scientist who you agree with.
quote:Then you're just obfuscating.
I didn't say it was. THough it is the primary pre-publication means of doing it.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:21 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nice try.
Clearly you are lying
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Well color me stunned!
He has a PHD in physics
If that is the case, my statement about science not being your thing was out of line. Does not negate your odd limitation of the term "peer review" solely to pre-publication. That simply is incorrect, but I'm impressed with the credential nonetheless.
What is your area of interest?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:36 pm to Jay Quest
quote:
I don't know a single Christian who is anti science. Some accept evolution and some don't.
"I don't know anyone who is anti-human rights. Some support slavery and some don't."
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:39 pm to Powerman
quote:Right. Because there are only two sources--Balunius and blogs.
Clearly you are lying
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:39 pm to AUbused
Have there been any scientific discoveries that disprove or cast doubt on Christianity?
The answer is no.
The whole science vs religion thing is a fabrication of those wishing to eradicate belief in God.
You don't have to choose one or the other. The two are not at odds.
The answer is no.
The whole science vs religion thing is a fabrication of those wishing to eradicate belief in God.
You don't have to choose one or the other. The two are not at odds.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 3:43 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Considering credentials espoused, I find posts like this extremely odd.
I'm saying you are lying if you claim to be well read in the area. Your knowledge must be limited to climategate blogs.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:06 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Jones criticisms aren't really the issue.
mkay quote:
Their tactics are the issue.
So its your opinion that a scientist should continue to volunteer their time for a journal they think has a shoddy review process? Why?quote:
Had that paper come to the "proper" conclusion it would have sailed through just like other had
It did "sail through." The Baliunas and Soon paper was published. Do you even know what you're talking about?
quote:
Do you think Borhmer-Christiansion is a liar?
About what?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Does not negate your odd limitation of the term "peer review" solely to pre-publication. That simply is incorrect,
First off, your claim wasn't merely that peer review wasn't limited to pre-publication review - but that pre-publication review was not ever part of the peer review process.
Second off - the wiki link you yourself posted only mentions post-publication peer review in the context of evaluating the clinical usefulness of medical studies. That clearly isn't a process that is relevant in a field with no medicine and no clinics.
quote:
What is your area of interest?
Astrophysics.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:14 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Right. Because there are only two sources--Balunius and blogs
There are only a tiny handful of people with PhD's in a physical science who are active in research and that publish anti-AGW papers. If getting your science from people who are actual trained scientists is important to you (which it isn't) - you would have known who Baliunas was.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 10:15 am
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:16 am to Jay Quest
quote:
I don't know a single Christian who is anti science. Some accept evolution and some don't.
So many comedians on this site! No, wait... you were SERIOUS.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:38 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:No you misread my post . . . assuming you are being honest in your misunderstanding. Peer review and peer reviewed publication is something I am extremely familiar with, at all levels.
First off, your claim wasn't merely that peer review wasn't limited to pre-publication review - but that pre-publication review was not ever part of the peer review process.
The point was raised when you dismissed a previous poster's citing of a "blog" as not worth field consideration. Dismissal without consideration of content is not science. It is politics. If a blog is junk science, let science and not politics dictate that. That is the point.
The response of Climatology Warmists to concepts as straight-forward as atmospheric CO2 and mean global air temperature phase relationships follows your dismissal model. If they are published on line, Phil Jones et al say "ignore the findings; they weren't published in a reputable vessel." However, try publishing data collations which do not support AGW in a major peer-reviewed journal, and peer review converts to peer resistance, reticence, or even professional fear. That is not science. It's politics.
That blending of politics and science in AGW is little different than the blending of religion and science faced by Galileo 4 centuries ago.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 10:41 am
Posted on 1/3/14 at 10:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The point was raised when you dismissed a previous poster's citing of a "blog" as not worth field consideration.
It isn't.
quote:
Dismissal without consideration of content is not science.
I never said it was science. I have only so much time - when I'm done reading all the sources with an actual peer review process, I'll get around to the blogs. By your standards I should devote as much time to reading all the "Einstein is wrong" emails from lunatics that I get as I do the Astrophysical Journal.
quote:
However, try publishing data collations which do not support AGW in a major peer-reviewed journal, and peer review converts to peer resistance, reticence, or even professional fear.
Can you actually site any examples?
The Soon, Baliunas paper that Jones was protesting did NOT post a data collection.
quote:
The most significant criticism is that Soon and Baliunas do not present their data quantitatively--instead they merely categorize the work of others primarily into one of two sets: either supporting or not supporting their particular definitions of a Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age. "I was stating outright that I'm not able to give too many quantitative details, especially in terms of aggregating all the results," Soon says.
LINK
Posted on 1/3/14 at 11:03 am to SpidermanTUba
So help me out with this. What is the cause of cyclical CO2 variance in this graph?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 11:06 am to NC_Tigah
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News