Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[digitaldog]

Note that, before publishing, it was also peer reviewed.

As we see on this forum daily, not all peers are created equally! 
Skip ahead to the video Bart provided, 3 minutes in, learn....

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

As we see on this forum daily, not all peers are created equally! 

Indeed... some are created with an extra pigeon gene

[digitaldog]

Indeed... some are created with an extra pigeon gene

Prove that scientifically, with multiple peer review experiments, showing multiple and consistent results, you might be onto something. Otherwise, you're not. It's just science fiction which news flash, isn't the same as science. 

[Alan Klein]

And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted. So no, it's not absolutely right. No, it's a lot more. It's part of the scientific process.

The problem is that if studies have such a high percentage of redaction once there is review, it's a pretty bad situation.  I was to my doctor the other day, and he told me that for elderly people like myself, they just changed the A1C diabetes advisory to under 7.0.  It was a lot less before but now they are only applying it to younger people.  I don't have to take more medicine than I'm taking now.  So that's good.  But the problem is you just never know what's good advice any more about your health, never mind climate.  Getting back to climate, just how real is the coral dying issue?  How much of it is just being blown up or ignorance of reality or pushing the issue for other reasons.  Skeptics like myself just don't believe scientists and politicians any longer.  Everyone seems to be fudging the truth.

[digitaldog]

The problem is that if studies have such a high percentage of redaction once there is review, it's a pretty bad situation.

Do you believe and have data to suggest that's the norm? Of course when it happens, it's far from ideal. We're human, not perfect. But the scientific method is the best we have thus far and historically, works better than not. It's one thing to be a skeptic, it's another to be a fact/science denier. In fact, much of the scientific method is based on healthy skepticism, to a point. Going full circle to this massive debate. Do the vast majority of the scientific community accept or deny climate change? Seems the vast majority accept it. I'm not a climate scientist nor play one on TV. I think accepting the opinions of the vast majority of such scientists is far more rational than being a total skeptic. Unlike SO many, I know what I don't know and I have a pretty good idea of those that do know what I don't know. I even try to learn from them.

[Alan Klein]

Do you believe and have data to suggest that's the norm? Of course when it happens, it's far from ideal. We're human, not perfect. But the scientific method is the best we have thus far and historically, works better than not. It's one thing to be a skeptic, it's another to be a fact/science denier. In fact, much of the scientific method is based on healthy skepticism, to a point. Going full circle to this massive debate. Do the vast majority of the scientific community accept or deny climate change? Seems the vast majority accept it. I'm not a climate scientist nor play one on TV. I think accepting the opinions of the vast majority of such scientists is far more rational than being a total skeptic. Unlike SO many, I know what I don't know and I have a pretty good idea of those that do know what I don't know. I even try to learn from them.

You don't have to be a scientist to have common sense.  When a climatologist claims we're killing off corals, a species that has lasted for tens of millions of years through times when it was a lot hotter, you know they have an agenda.   A fool and his money are soon parted. 

[digitaldog]

You don't have to be a scientist to have common sense. 

Old saying: Common sense isn't a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Next, what's common sense to you or someone else could be considered utter rubbish by another. That's what separates science from common sense.
Not long ago, it was common sense to believe the Earth was flat. That's utter nonsense we know today, based on science and observations based on science.

When a climatologist claims we're killing off corals, a species that has lasted for tens of millions of years through times when it was a lot hotter, you know they have an agenda.

That statement to me, lacks any common sense. Today, it is believed through science that man has been here for approx. 200,000 years, so what? A few nukes and we're all gone. So how long corals have been around has absolutely nothing to do with them dying off or do you believe they are not? I asked Solbodan earlier to pick one of three doors, he can't or will not. I'll ask you the same basic question about coral:
1. They are dying off.
2. They are not dying off whatsoever.
3. They are doing the opposite; there's more coral.
Pick a door and tell us how you base your selection please.


Next tell us why climatologist have an agenda to lie assuming you believe every climatologist is in total agreements? Specifically what agenda would any group of scientists who agree on data, have an agenda other than presenting that data? Now, I can imagine an agenda why non climatologist, politicians and people who don't like the idea of climate change may have an agenda. Or it's an agenda based on a lack of knowledge.   

A fool and his money are soon parted.

So you are implying this scientific agenda is about money?
Speaking of fools:

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard


Kind of boils down to who we believe and why. I have no agenda about the climate. I do have an agenda of attempting to understand and accept scientific facts of the day, provided by the majority of such scientists nor do I believe they have any agenda other than understanding the science. I suppose that's the difference between each side in this debate.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Briefly breaking my rule about not commenting on this thread, has no one at all recognized the improper use of the word redaction?  We have had maybe 5-6 posts without anyone realizing that it should be "retraction."  Back to radio silence (but enjoying the foolish comments of many).

[digitaldog]

Briefly breaking my rule about not commenting on this thread, has no one at all recognized the improper use of the word redaction?  We have had maybe 5-6 posts without anyone realizing that it should be "retraction."  Back to radio silence (but enjoying the foolish comments of many).

re·dac·tion

rəˈdakSH(ə)n/

noun

the process of editing text for publication.

a version of a text, such as a new edition or an abridged version.
plural noun: redactions

• the censoring or obscuring of part of a text for legal or security purposes.

[Alan Goldhammer]

@Andrew Rodney - I don't need to know the definition of redaction.  The first post to use it was about the retraction of the Wakefield papers regarding autism caused vaccine.  Redaction in its normal use implies 1)editing a document for brevity without losing the meaning or 2) editing a document to leave out information that should not be read by readers; it has nothing to do with retracting a scientific paper whose conclusions have been proven wrong.  I believe you were the person who improperly used the word 'redacted' here, "...And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...

Back to radio silence.

[Alan Klein]

Old saying: Common sense isn't a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Next, what's common sense to you or someone else could be considered utter rubbish by another. That's what separates science from common sense.
Not long ago, it was common sense to believe the Earth was flat. That's utter nonsense we know today, based on science and observations based on science. That statement to me, lacks any common sense. Today, it is believed through science that man has been here for approx. 200,000 years, so what? A few nukes and we're all gone. So how long corals have been around has absolutely nothing to do with them dying off or do you believe they are not? I asked Solbodan earlier to pick one of three doors, he can't or will not. I'll ask you the same basic question about coral:
1. They are dying off.
2. They are not dying off whatsoever.
3. They are doing the opposite; there's more coral.
Pick a door and tell us how you base your selection please.


Next tell us why climatologist have an agenda to lie assuming you believe every climatologist is in total agreements? Specifically what agenda would any group of scientists who agree on data, have an agenda other than presenting that data? Now, I can imagine an agenda why non climatologist, politicians and people who don't like the idea of climate change may have an agenda. Or it's an agenda based on a lack of knowledge.   So you are implying this scientific agenda is about money?
Speaking of fools:

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard


Kind of boils down to who we believe and why. I have no agenda about the climate. I do have an agenda of attempting to understand and accept scientific facts of the day, provided by the majority of such scientists nor do I believe they have any agenda other than understanding the science. I suppose that's the difference between each side in this debate.

Who runs their life based on what some scientists say.  You have to use some discernment, or at least I do.  You can do what you wish.

Additionally, all the hoopla is not only coming from scientists.  There are huge political and economic powers at work who benefit by pushing the climate agenda.  As the expression goes, if you want to know what's really going on, follow the money. 

[Alan Klein]

@Andrew Rodney - I don't need to know the definition of redaction.  The first post to use it was about the retraction of the Wakefield papers regarding autism caused vaccine.  Redaction in its normal use implies 1)editing a document for brevity without losing the meaning or 2) editing a document to leave out information that should not be read by readers; it has nothing to do with retracting a scientific paper whose conclusions have been proven wrong.  I believe you were the person who improperly used the word 'redacted' here, "...And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...

Back to radio silence.

Before this is over, you're going to wish you maintained radio silence and never posted.

[Alan Klein]

Maybe you ought to retract your post. 

[digitaldog]

@Andrew Rodney - I don't need to know the definition of redaction.  The first post to use it was about the retraction of the Wakefield papers regarding autism caused vaccine.  Redaction in its normal use implies 1)editing a document for brevity without losing the meaning or 2) editing a document to leave out information that should not be read by readers; it has nothing to do with retracting a scientific paper whose conclusions have been proven wrong.  I believe you were the person who improperly used the word 'redacted' here, "...And, thanks to sound peer review, it was redacted...

Back to radio silence.

Promises made but not kept.

[digitaldog]

Who runs their life based on what some scientists say.

Many of us. Those who believe in science (and can actually answer questions about it).

Additionally, all the hoopla is not only coming from scientists.

One man's hoopla is another's fact (based on science). For a science denier, everything must appear to be hoopla.
You probably really do believe in god? Elves, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc?

[Alan Klein]

Many of us. Those who believe in science (and can actually answer questions about it). One man's hoopla is another's fact (based on science). For a science denier, everything must appear to be hoopla.
You probably really do believe in god? Elves, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus etc?

When you reach down to personal insults, the discussion is over.  Have a nice day. 

[digitaldog]

When you reach down to personal insults, the discussion is over.  Have a nice day.

Insulting? I asked a question, actually quite a few. You don't want to reply to any so sure, move on and have a nice day.

[Ray]

Here's a quote by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet  a weekly peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is among the world's oldest, most prestigious, and best known general medical journals.

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.
Link to the full article: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

Alan,
It's interesting to see the response in this thread from the AGW alarmists, to the above criticism.

I've often got the impression that the term 'denier' could more appropriately be used to describe the 'alarmists' who seem to be in denial about the importance of the fundamental scientific process of repeated experimentation and the necessary attempts at falsification of any hypothesis before a degree of certainty can be achieved.

I've recently come across an article from Vox Media which addresses the current problems that face research scientists in many disciplines. It's an interesting read and more detailed than the article in your link.
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process

I'll quote a few of the issues that are addressed, just for the benefit of the alarmists who might be reluctant to read anything which might undermine their religious certainty. 

"In the past several years, many scientists have become afflicted with a serious case of doubt — doubt in the very institution of science.
As reporters covering medicine, psychology, climate change, and other areas of research, we wanted to understand this epidemic of doubt. So we sent scientists a survey asking this simple question: If you could change one thing about how science works today, what would it be and why?"

"We heard back from 270 scientists all over the world, including graduate students, senior professors, laboratory heads, and Fields Medalists. They told us that, in a variety of ways, their careers are being hijacked by perverse incentives. The result is bad science."
"Our respondents told us, the process is riddled with conflict. Scientists say they’re forced to prioritize self-preservation over pursuing the best questions and uncovering meaningful truths."

"Today, scientists' success often isn't measured by the quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It's instead measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public."
"Scientists often learn more from studies that fail. But failed studies can mean career death. So instead, they’re incentivized to generate positive results they can publish. And the phrase "publish or perish" hangs over nearly every decision. It’s a nagging whisper, like a Jedi’s path to the dark side."

"Replication is another foundational concept in science. Researchers take an older study that they want to test and then try to reproduce it to see if the findings hold up.
Testing, validating, retesting — it's all part of a slow and grinding process to arrive at some semblance of scientific truth. But this doesn't happen as often as it should, our respondents said. Scientists face few incentives to engage in the slog of replication. And even when they attempt to replicate a study, they often find they can’t do so. Increasingly it’s being called a "crisis of irreproducibility."

"Peer review is broken.
Peer review is meant to weed out junk science before it reaches publication. Yet over and over again in our survey, respondents told us this process fails. It was one of the parts of the scientific machinery to elicit the most rage among the researchers we heard from."

"Science is poorly communicated to the public.
"If I could change one thing about science, I would change the way it is communicated to the public by scientists, by journalists, and by celebrities," writes Clare Malone, a postdoctoral researcher in a cancer genetics lab at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
She wasn't alone. Quite a few respondents in our survey expressed frustration at how science gets relayed to the public. They were distressed by the fact that so many laypeople hold on to completely unscientific ideas or have a crude view of how science works.
"You have this toxic dynamic where journalists and scientists enable each other in a way that massively inflates the certainty and generality of how scientific findings are communicated and the promises that are made to the public," writes Daniel Molden, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University. "When these findings prove to be less certain and the promises are not realized, this just further erodes the respect that scientists get and further fuels scientists desire for appreciation."

[Alan Klein]

Ray, add to those comments the fact that bad news sells.  Everyone wants to see a catastrophe movie of the world blowing up or an invasion of alien species destroying the planet.  What's interesting about a guy napping on a beach chair on a beautiful day at the shore?  So journalists look for bad news about polar bears and coral rather than how CO2 is causing huge increases in the production of food to feed the world. 

The other problem is that politicians look for wedge issues to separate themselves from their competitors to get more votes.  Politicians are great in scaring people and the journalists eat it up.  Scientists look at the landscape and politicians to get them funding for their pet projects.  It's incestuous. 

[Peter McLennan]

...CO2 is causing huge increases in the production of food to feed the world.

A concept relentlessly promoted here; that CO2 is good for food production.  In fact, recently cast in serious doubt. Yes, bigger crops.  No, not better food.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/june-9-2018-rising-co2-levels-make-food-less-nutritious-neonics-and-bees-tricking-facial-recognition-1.4696119/rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-are-turning-rice-and-fish-into-junk-food-1.4696123