- 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 12:02 pm to Iosh
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:02 pm to Iosh
quote:Are their credentials exaggerated?
If they're selling this slop as "peer-reviewed" and exaggerating their credentials such comments are richly deserved.
As for peer review in the field of AGW, it SUCKS across the board.
0
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:02 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
But it is true.
Perhaps you should look at the ocean data again
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:02 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:Yes. It's called ABD (All But Dissertation). Countless people have gotten to that point, but since that is kind of an important part of a PhD, none of them have their Doctorate unless they finish, defend, and have their committee approve their dissertation.
He finished everything but his dissertation but was awarded an honorary doctorate. Yeah. They're credentials are in question.
And an Honorary Doctorate is not a valid degree to use as a professional credential. Brian Williams spoke at my college graduation (before he was publicly shamed); he got an Honorary Doctorate. Are you going to stay calling him "Dr. Williams?"
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:03 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Dude your quotes that leave out context are horrible.
It's your signature move.
And you suck at it. Now go mow my lawn.
It's your signature move.
And you suck at it. Now go mow my lawn.
This post was edited on 7/10/17 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:05 pm to Errerrerrwere
They list the credentials of those who agree with the conclusions but don't list them for the main authors. That's beyond bizarre.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:06 pm to Winkface
Yeah. So bizarre. 
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:07 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:quote:Another good point, Tex. It has gone to shite in today's world. Especially as it relates to AGW.
Peer reviewed means little to nothing nowadays
Sorry. I suppose I should have given you credit for "little." I can correct that if you like.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:12 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
You aren't too quick and your sense of humor is even worse than I thought if you couldn't get that from all of the other threads about this.
But I would be very angry if I were you too.
Must suck.
But I would be very angry if I were you too.
Must suck.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:34 pm to Salmon
quote:
Land temps are adjusted upwards due to screen design changes
LINK
Ocean temps are adjusted downward due to evaporation while being taken out of the ocean by a bucket
LINK
And all those "adjustments" invalidate the record. They are no more than guesses. That is not science.
Why do you "I'm freaked out about 0.8 degree temp rise in 100 years!!!" types hate science??
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:48 pm to Dale51
quote:They may be an additional source of potential error, but they don't invalidate the record.
And all those "adjustments" invalidate the record.
quote:What? Any mathematical or statistical model makes assumptions and adjustments to identify patterns. So you would literally be invalidating most of science.
That is not science.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:54 pm to Dale51
quote:5 out of 4 Americans Do Not Understand Statistics
And all those "adjustments" invalidate the record. They are no more than guesses. That is not science.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 12:55 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
What? Any mathematical or statistical model makes assumptions and adjustments to identify patterns. So you would literally be invalidating most of science.
Such as what? That said, not every method used in valid in every application. Climate is the most non linear, chaotic systems there is and it is effected by other chaos systems. That said, which of those models predict massive and dire changes to the baseline after a period of time? Can you point out any?
Global Warming Hysteria a the biggest hoax ever foisted on people who should be too intelligent to fall for it.
Which predictions, in the last half century, that these shamen have claimed were "right around the corner" have come to pass?? Can you point some out?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:05 pm to Winkface
Thats nice.
4 out of 5 Americans don't understand that statistical analysis requires a different skill set than the skill set required by the people who accumulated the data.
"Numbers don't lie..but liars use numbers"
"There are lies..damn lies..and statistics"
4 out of 5 Americans don't understand that statistical analysis requires a different skill set than the skill set required by the people who accumulated the data.
"Numbers don't lie..but liars use numbers"
"There are lies..damn lies..and statistics"
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:10 pm to Dale51
quote:
Such as what?
such as the air emissions model/program that I'm currently using
quote:
Which predictions, in the last half century, that these shamen have claimed were "right around the corner" have come to pass?? Can you point some out?
Global temperatures are rising
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:12 pm to Salmon
quote:
Global temperatures are rising
I admire your persistence
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:12 pm to Dale51
quote:There are two broad types of controls in science: experimental and statistical. Some reseach lends itself better to providing experimental controls, but statical controls can tease out the complicated aspects that can't be controlled.
Such as what?
I mean any General Linear Model or Generalized Linear Model, relies on underlying assumptions about the data, and then attempts to partition source of variability within and between variables, so identify the patterns and trends to test hypotheses.
In the end, they are all taking a complex system and trying to identify factors for that system to control and a just for various conditions.
quote:Exactly. And the problem is that it's too complicated to control for every factor, which causes error, but that doesn't mean they can't get general estimates.
Climate is the most non linear, chaotic systems there is and it is effected by other chaos systems.
quote:I agree the th hysteria is overblown, but that is largely a result of the political opportunists taking over the narrative. That doesn't somehow invalidate the entire science of it.
Global Warming Hysteria a the biggest hoax ever foisted on people who should be too intelligent to fall for it.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:15 pm to Salmon
quote:
Global temperatures are rising
Once again. Is the temperature rising towards optimization? Warming from an ice age. Or has it surpassed optimal temperature?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:17 pm to Lg
quote:
Once again. Is the temperature rising towards optimization? Warming from an ice age. Or has it surpassed optimal temperature?
Relevance?
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:23 pm to Salmon
quote:
Relevance?
Really? If the earth's natural cycle is to warm and cool on it's on, why are humans trying to control it?
Why do you see the need for a carbon tax if there isn't anything human activity can do to reduce warming if we are just in a cycle? Why the dire warnings if the earth isn't at optimal temperature? What would be the narrative if we were heading the other way? Cooling? Everybody produce more emissions? We are awfully arrogant to think we can control anything.
Posted on 7/10/17 at 1:26 pm to Lg
quote:
Really?
Yes, really.
I was simply replaying to a question about what predictions have the models have got right.
You're throwing all this other nonsense on to me because I can admit that the global temperature is rising and defend the science behind it.
Save all your political nonsense for someone else.
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News