The latest on Global warming.

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheVillagerIdiot

Active Member
Check out this article. Not the only result you get when you google "peer review scandals", by the way.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
"The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.
That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.""
Not necessarily corruption or deliberate lying from the scientists, as it says that the issue is not about fraud, but the issue of replication. Granted, one should wait before announcing something is scientific fact for a few years after the discovery until you have enough replications. I agree that the culture of discovery can lead to hasty findings (ahem, that cold fusion debacle) and is toxic in general, but to call it corruption would be a stretch in my opinion. However, everything that I discussed in the scientific literature in this discussion has been replicated multiple times. We aren't talking about breaking new grounds with medicine or similar topics where the science can be quite shaky as replication is not happening fast enough.
And I've looked at the other scandals. The ones where fake peer reviews have been discovered have been retracted and the journals cleaned up. It's a problem, but not significant enough to discredit the robustness of scientific journals.
 
Last edited:

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
but to call it corruption would be a stretch in my opinion.
Please show me where I used the word "corruption". I'd appreciate it.

I used to debate with atheists on one of their forums, and an interesting thing I found with the whole evolution debate is how many times the scientific establishment has changed the definition of "species". And it sure looked like the changes were to keep the definition of "species" from conflicting with new information that had to do with the theory of evolution. In other words, when new information came to light that didn't mesh with both the definition of "species" and the theory of evolution, they simply changed the definition of "species". Seems dishonest to me.
 

plinker

Forum Moderator
This all started with Global Warming, and now has been changed to Climate Change. Where did this all start (mainly)? Why, Al Gore!!! After he lost his bid for the White House, he was the one that started most if not all of this. Remember that by 2018, he predicted that the Polar Ice Cap would be gone and the oceans would rise at least four feet? Aruge and present facts, I say Follow The MONEY!!
 

Grumblenuts

Member
This all started with Global Warming, and now has been changed to Climate Change. Where did this all start (mainly)? Why, Al Gore!!! After he lost his bid for the White House, he was the one that started most if not all of this. Remember that by 2018, he predicted that the Polar Ice Cap would be gone and the oceans would rise at least four feet? Aruge and present facts, I say Follow The MONEY!!
Seriously? Apples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols(e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming. Since the 1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded. Research has expanded our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to model climate change numerically. Research during this period has been summarized in the Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Oranges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_presidential_campaign,_2000
The 2000 presidential campaign of Al Gore, the 45th Vice President of the United States under President Bill Clinton, began when he announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States in Carthage, Tennesseeon June 16, 1999. Gore became the Democratic nominee for the 2000 presidential election on August 17, 2000. Victory in the presidential election would have made Gore the first president to not be born in the 50 states, as he was born in the District of Columbia, as well as the first Democrat since the Civil War to succeed another Democrat to the Presidency by election in his own right.

On November 7, 2000, projections indicated that Gore's opponent, then-Governor of Texas George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had narrowly won the election. Gore won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college vote after a bitter legal battle over disputed vote counts in the state of Florida. Bush won the election on the electoral college vote of 271 to 266. One elector pledged to Gore did not cast an electoral vote; Gore received 267 pledged electors. The election was one of the most controversial in American history.[1][2]
 

TheVillagerIdiot

Active Member
Please show me where I used the word "corruption". I'd appreciate it.
Corruption means dishonest conduct, so because you said scientists act dishonest in the scientific community, you in other words implied that there is corruption. I just didn't want to type "acting dishonest" because it's a longer phrase where "corruption" can easily be interchanged.
an interesting thing I found with the whole evolution debate is how many times the scientific establishment has changed the definition of "species". And it sure looked like the changes were to keep the definition of "species" from conflicting with new information that had to do with the theory of evolution. In other words, when new information came to light that didn't mesh with both the definition of "species" and the theory of evolution, they simply changed the definition of "species". Seems dishonest to me.
How is changing the definitions of words because new information has rendered the definitions worthless considered dishonest? If anything it's adapting to new information and discoveries. If the scientists have kept the same definition of species and rejected the new information because it didn't fit that definition of species, then that would be dishonest.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree that the switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" was ill-considered to say the least. It was clearly a cowardly political capitulation to the vehement deniers at the time,.. but that aside for the moment, simply dumb on so many levels. Indeed climates have always changed so where's the problem? Nowhere according to the label. Not so with Global Warming.. especially considering the ice core evidence clearly indicating that the Earth should be cooling now instead. Something is obviously wrong? "Climate Change" utterly fails to describe it. Granted one must still mentally preface both with Anthropomorphic (or hey, why not simply "Man Made" you pedantic bunch of climate science sissies?) and that's just fine. Let the deniers still presume that a valid avenue of attack and make asses of themselves all they want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
How is changing the definitions of words because new information has rendered the definitions worthless considered dishonest?
The definition didn't become worthless, it just conflicted with the theory of evolution. And we certainly can't be changing the theory of evolution, or worse yet actually change it to fit new information. You do realize why it's called the "theory" of evolution, don't you? Because it hasn't been proven. (And don't pull out that tired argument that "theory" means something different in science.)
 

plinker

Forum Moderator
Surely, you must realize that whomever funds these "studies" pay to hear the message they want (pay) to hear. What is a decade or two to the climate of the earth? A cooling trend could start before 2020, or 2030. Then what would be said? I have always taken the position of seeing cold, hard facts. (pardon the pun). We shall actually see in another decade or two, maybe....
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Member
Surely, you must realize that whomever funds these "studies" pay to hear the message they want (pay) to hear.
You mean privatization of any and all research done purportedly in the public interest is a very bad plan? Funny, you haven't struck me as politically liberal at all until just now.
What is a decade or two to the climate of the earth?
Sounds lke a decade or two of Earth climate.
A cooling trend could start before 2020, or 2030.
Not according to the projections which have proven impressively accurate thus far. You must mean in an alternate reality where we had no such tools at hand and no power to predict these things that far into the future otherwise. Well, in that case,... what if blue monkeys begin flying out of my butt?
Then what would be said?
Perhaps "Hey, a cooling trend started before 2020, or 2030. Who knew?" or "Wow, do you realize blue monkeys are flying out of your butt?!"
I have always taken the position of seeing cold, hard facts. (pardon the pun).
Pun? Facts? Here? Now you've completely lost me.
We shall actually see in another decade or two, maybe....
See what?
 

plinker

Forum Moderator
Man can only accurately predict weather and such for a month or so in advance. Everthing else is only a educated guess. As for climate change, which way will it go? Your blue monkeys probably know as much as the "experts".
Just for something to ponder: Genesis 8:22, NIV: "As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.'" ... Genesis 8:22, KJV: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Like I've said earlier, he shot a beam of electrons through a cathode tube with magnets, and the beam was attracted to the positive end of the magnet, and deduced that since opposite charges attract, the beam had particles of a negative charge. He never saw an electron, and I never said he did. I just said that he found evidence to confirm the existence of electrons.
Just want you to know that I appreciate the effort put into this entire long response. No intent to ignore you, just been too busy to reply. Regarding this part, again, the point is no one has actually "seen" an electron, gluon, etc. You have yet to respond directly, intelligently, appropriately. It's clear that you, an obviously well educated, modern sentient being, are at a complete loss when it comes to "thinking outside the box." Not surprising in the least. Google key related term, parrot some of finding as though someone would or had actually requested a history lessen on the subject from you, pointlessly provide link, rinse, and repeat... is all you've done and seemingly all you've got. The desperate name dropping toward the end along with its phony supplied pretext was particularly rich. Like most, you wear that enormous ego right on your sleeve, yet apparently couldn't formulate or share an independent thought if your life depended upon it. Sad, but again, hardly surprising. Again, I will comb through the entire thing when I get a chance and get back to you concerning anything appearing not to fit the above mold.
 
Last edited:

plinker

Forum Moderator
This isn't about the weather. The intelligent way to proceed is to first educate yourself, then perhaps attempt discussion of such things, not the reverse.
If man cannot predict weather for more than a few weeks, can they actually predict climate change? I'm educated, and I staill follow the maoney trail.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
If man cannot predict weather for more than a few weeks, can they actually predict climate change?
Evidently yes.
I'm educated, and I staill follow the maoney trail.
The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. In fact, following the money is a no brainer in any case (puns always intended). So please do and report whatever you find, whether or not it supports your current beliefs on the matter. If you really want those results then work on it. Don't ask others to do it for you. You would likely never trust their reports anyway.
 

plinker

Forum Moderator
Haven't people been fooled enough by the catastrophe of the day? Sheep follow blindly. I have to see more than I have to even start to believe them. You should too. I am more worried about plastic in the oceans than the smoke screen of climate change.
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
Haven't people been fooled enough by the catastrophe of the day? Sheep follow blindly. I have to see more than I have to even start to believe them. You should too. I am more worried about plastic in the oceans than the smoke screen of climate change.
Are you serious? You can really look at the unprecedented weather events that get worse every year and think that nothing is going on with the climate? Well, okay, if that helps you sleep at night.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
So getting back to this long post, in response to this part my previous post here:
I mean how much more fundamental can one get than the atom? Just can't do it, eh?
bearing in mind that after reading the entire post , not to mention the rest of them, one would have to be thicker than a brick to simply respond with more of the same.. However, TheVillagerIdiot indeed does just that, starting with an image titled "Standard Model of Elementary Particles" and provides the following excuse:
Those are all of the subatomic particles that we know of right now.
In other words, he's arguing that sub-ATOM-ic particles are "more fundamental".. "than the atom"!
Okay, I can switch back to addressing you directly now. First, "more fundamental than the atom" is cliché, not a phrase offered to be taken so literally. Second, electrons are clearly included in that set so we were already at that "sub"-level to begin with. That was the point. I brought up the electron, the "gluon, etc" long before. Nowhere new to go there. But you want to keep on believing I'm somehow unfamiliar with or don't understand the "Standard", the status quo, the institutional, the mainstream, the ESTABLISHMENT'S garbage assemblage of beliefs about the entire business. Well, so sorry... wrong, I obviously do. Now kindly get over it.

This is no dick waving contest. I quickly recognized you as someone capable of understanding all that stuff you've posted here. So I've been asking you to consider the possibility of an alternative explanation. No one has ever seen any of these "particles". All is therefore simply theoretical... including the labeling of them as "particles" (or "waves" for that matter). THINK about that. Of course they keep banging stuff together and getting VISUAL results, measurements, "observations." Science! So what. There's still no genuine consensus among the physicists involved as to how it all fits together, how it explains MUCH of the stuff everyone had hoped it might. Nothing remotely comparable to the consensus among climate scientists regarding climate change, for example.

The atom smashers have certainly been no waste of money thus far, but they've pretty much done all they can. There's a practical limit to how big you can make the things and expect to "observe" anything new or better. We're basically already there and we still can't concoct any "Universal Theory" from it that ties everything together in a neat package with a bow. No closer to that now than Einstein ever got. Know why? Obviously because Einstein had something fundamentally wrong. Actually, he doubted his basis most of his adult life and expressed regret for misleading the entire world towards the end. Too little too late, unfortunately. The damage was done. Don't believe me. Research it for yourself.

But first, have the decency to acknowledge that when you literally "can't see" whether something is material or not, then you can't logically call it a "particle" now can you?! What if it were just a bundle of magnetism and electricity that we "observe" or measure as having a certain mass, charge, "spin" and what have you? If you can open up your mind to seriously consider that possible then you've finally begun journeying down the right path for the very first time. Where it ultimately leads no one quite knows yet. One thing that's evident so far is that reality is much simpler than we've all been led to believe. However, a ton of deprogramming is an unfortunate must before getting much of anywhere.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Haven't people been fooled enough by the catastrophe of the day? Sheep follow blindly. I have to see more than I have to even start to believe them. You should too. I am more worried about plastic in the oceans than the smoke screen of climate change.
I sympathize greatly with both your seeming instinctive rejection of the scientific projections here and Stephen's response. Refusing to believe what trickles down from above and feels wrong to you at gut level is natural and good. Far too few question enough. Indeed we are led to become compliant, unquestioning sheep from early childhood. Good workers. Just smart enough to get the job done and no more. However, in light of that, quoting Bible passages as though that represented some sort of alternative is truly ironic. Surely you must realize, perhaps in some other portion of your gut, that you're just substituting one pile of indoctrination that you've chosen to believe in, one you literally must have faith in (not question) according to its establishment's experts, for another that you've so far chosen not to believe in. Try this. Start fresh. Reject all of it. Everyone's speculations about everything. Believe only what you can see or otherwise confirm directly with your own senses and build from there. Good luck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.