Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:17:45 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland  (Read 18329 times)
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:10:43 PM
 #241

P4 man please read my post that included the actual charts and part of the methods section from the study your abstract was from. It was not a poll.
1481213865
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213865

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213865
Reply with quote  #2

1481213865
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481213865
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481213865

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481213865
Reply with quote  #2

1481213865
Report to moderator
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:16:32 PM
 #242

P4 man please read my post that included the actual charts and part of the methods section from the study your abstract was from. It was not a poll.

I did read it and nothing you bolded refutes their conclusion. How could it? You bolded statements in their very report. So now you want to argue the statistical methods used by the national academy of science now to somehow proof 97-98% is what, 50%?

For crying out loud, get real.

bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:18:38 PM
 #243

First of all you just claimed it was a poll. That is incorrect. This has nothing to do with statistics. Stop getting hysterical.

edit: Please look at the charts and read the methods. Try to think of alternative interpretations of the data.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:25:37 PM
 #244

Here is the entire paper(only 3 pages):
http://www.mediafire.com/?74pd5d74l3uuo08
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:30:01 PM
 #245

Do you have any idea how unearthly desperate you sound, trying to come up with "alternative interpretations"  to refute the NAS' conclusions while using the very same NAS data from the very same report? What on earth do you expect to achieve?

Honestly, there is a limit to how much nonsense I can cope with.

How I wish there was an unsubscribe button, cause Im done here.

bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:31:24 PM
 #246

You think that a single paper published in PNAS represents the views of the NAS??? There is more misunderstanding here than I thought.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 10:41:04 PM
 #247

Do you have any idea how unearthly desperate you sound, trying to come up with "alternative interpretations"  to refute the NAS' conclusions while using the very same NAS data from the very same report? What on earth do you expect to achieve?

Honestly, there is a limit to how much nonsense I can cope with.

Science isn't magic, anyone can do it under the right circumstances.

Here is how science works *in general:
1) Scientist #1 reads peer-reviewed literature
2) Scientist #1 comes up with an idea based on this literature
3) Scientist #1 uses a small amount of funds they have to generate preliminary evidence. Thus indicating their idea has merit, and they are capable of performing the experiment.
4) Scientist #1 writes up a grant proposal and submits it to funding agencies
5) Other scientists (usually 2-4) review this proposal (along with many others) and score it based on funding agency guidelines and their subjective criteria
6) Grants with the best scores get funded with large amount of money.
7) Scientist #1 uses grant money to perform larger scale experiment
8) The data generated by the larger scale experiment is analyzed and interpreted by scientist #1
9) Scientist #1 writes a report describing how the data was analyzed, what previous publications say about related data, and his/her interpretations of the results in light of other work and general knowledge about the world.
10) This report is submitted to various peer reviewed journals
11) Other scientists (usually 2-4) review this report (along with many others) and critique it according to journal guidelines and subjective criteria.
12) Scientist #1's report meets the subjective criteria of the reviewers and is published
13) Scientist #2 reads this report (along with many others)
14) Scientist #2 comes up with a new idea based on the now updated literature. This can be either an alternative to scientist #1's conclusions or supporting them.

....Cycle repeats, etc.

So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
2) Access to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)

Edit= I have emphasized the steps most vulnerable to political contamination with italics.



FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 03:41:31 AM
 #248

So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
2) Access to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)

I fail to see your point.

Those who disagree with AGW do not lack 1, 2, 3 or 4. Big Oil sees to that. Unfortunately for them, they often lack credibility, which is why journal reviewers probably don't favor them. Really, try not to be so obtuse. Quite simply, the money is there in massive quantities to support science against AGW. The problem is, there just isn't good science against AGW. Ever thought of that? If there was indeed good science against AGW, then why would individuals find the need to produce quack documents such as the Oregon Petition?
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 03:47:47 AM
 #249

Look up the funding sources and their history.

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 03:53:00 AM
 #250

Look up the funding sources and their history.

I've already explained this here in this thread quite clearly. I'm surprised that you think your statement actually explains anything.

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 05:34:58 AM
 #251

So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
2) Access to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)

I fail to see your point.

Those who disagree with AGW do not lack 1, 2, 3 or 4. Big Oil sees to that. Unfortunately for them, they often lack credibility, which is why journal reviewers probably don't favor them. Really, try not to be so obtuse. Quite simply, the money is there in massive quantities to support science against AGW. The problem is, there just isn't good science against AGW. Ever thought of that? If there was indeed good science against AGW, then why would individuals find the need to produce quack documents such as the Oregon Petition?

I was replying to P4man who seemed to think that questioning peer-reviewed literature was nonsense.
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 11:53:44 AM
 #252

I would like to demonstrate this argument in the form of a video.

http://youtu.be/PGuD9ru27d0?t=36m13s

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 06:42:08 PM
 #253

Every time we get one of these climate change threads, I ask for the deniers to post some credible science against AGW, and it never materializes.

Furthermore, there's a definite split, and it goes like this:

1. Those who use their political beliefs to guide what scientific results they're looking for.

2. Those who use the results of science to guide their political beliefs.

If you're in camp #1, you've got problems.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 06:47:32 PM
 #254

What is your definition of AGW?

1) That the earth has warmed since 1900.
2) That the earth has warmed since 1990 due to CO2 emissions.
3) That the earth will continue to warm.
4) That the earth will continue to warm until catastrophic events occur.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 06:57:13 PM
 #255

The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

I think your problem is you don't know enough about ecosystems. You might want to learn about ecology, trophic cascades, natural capital, and other topics within that framework. Let me know if I can recommend any reading material to you that will serve as a both a primer and catalyst.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 07:28:30 PM
 #256

Ok, well I believe your definition is different from that of most scientists. I think you have mixed up the definition with a few of the possible outcomes. Anyway, in doing this you added in a couple new terms we need to define. My next question was going to be:

What is your definition of credible?

Also:
What is your definition of "Serious Damage"?
What is your definition of "Huge Economic Damage"?

Once you define these, I will try to find credible science that is "against" AGW.

Actually can you also define "against"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want any disagreement once I do this.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 07:56:10 PM
 #257

Ok, well I believe your definition is different from that of most scientists.

Well, it isn't.

Quote
What is your definition of credible?

Also:
What is your definition of "Serious Damage"?
What is your definition of "Huge Economic Damage"?

Once you define these, I will try to find credible science that is "against" AGW.

Actually can you also define "against"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want any disagreement once I do this.

No, I won't define "against". You may use an online dictionary. As for the other terms, if you had greater information to back up whatever it is you believe, then you wouldn't resort to such parsing. And no, I won't define the term "greater" for you as used in the last sentence. 
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 08:35:25 PM
 #258

Ok, well I believe your definition is different from that of most scientists. I think you have mixed up the definition with a few of the possible outcomes. Anyway, in doing this you added in a couple new terms we need to define. My next question was going to be:

What is your definition of credible?

Also:
What is your definition of "Serious Damage"?
What is your definition of "Huge Economic Damage"?

Once you define these, I will try to find credible science that is "against" AGW.

Actually can you also define "against"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want any disagreement once I do this.

To demonstrate how pointless and annoying your line of attack is:

Please define what "differrent" means in your first sentence above. What do you mean by "mixed up" in the second sentence above.

Also, in the first sentence above, you used the term 'believe'. How do feel a belief system taints one's line of thinking?
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 06, 2012, 08:36:48 PM
 #259

Ok, since for whatever reason you don't want to cooperate, I will use my own definitions. I predict we will observe that you move the goal posts though.

Most Credible= IPCC report
Semi-Credible= Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
Not-Credible= everything else

Against is actually kind of tough. Lets say that,

"Against AGW"= the discussion includes a statement of doubt that

Quote
The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

I don't think we are ready to talk about "Serious damage" and "huge economic damage". That belongs more in the discussion about the cost-benefit of do nothing, mitigate, or adapt. Instead, I will use a rise of 2-4 K or more from current temperatures in the next two hundred years as a proxy for damage. This seems to be the temperature change consistently associated with big problems by the IPCC. Correct me if I'm wrong here...
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 03:51:48 AM
 #260

Instead, I will use a rise of 2-4 K or more from current temperatures in the next two hundred years as a proxy for damage.

Do as you wish. A solid summary of your views and logic behind them would be helpful, because right now they're not so clear.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!