Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas): "Climate change: Seven indisputable facts"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I love how "peer review" is so often trotted out as an argument that some paper's content is irrefutable or substantial. It is a logical fallacy in part that is an argument from authority.

    http://ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm

    http://www.nature.com/news/publishin...w-scam-1.16400

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/14/pnas

    One of the clear indicators of this is the exponentially increasing number of papers being retracted for plagiarism, republishing past gibberish, and other academic laxities now that there are programs out that can quickly and easily discover these frauds and intellectual failures.

    It really doesn't matter what the field is. Peer review has become virtually meaningless. Let's take one from the field this board primarily deals with.



    John Moiser, an English professor wrote the book. It was peer reviewed. He even told me that as a defense when I wrote him a scathing review of it.

    If it were truly peer reviewed by some military historians they would panned his work as rubbish from the get go. A quick review of the bibliography alone shows it to be nothing more than a quick trip or two to the local Barnes and Noble store (or equivalent) to pick up some Osprey titles and common books on the subject to be covered.

    Peer review in this case failed miserably. His peers probably didn't even bother to read the book because if they did and knew their subject matter it would never have flown.
    It's a common misconception that "peer-review" is some sort of verification process. Reviewers do not check the work or attempt to reproduce the results. They simply proofread the paper to see if there are any glaring errors and determine if it merits publication. Since they don't check the work, the errors have to be glaring like a supernova.

    "Pal-review" and other willful efforts to undermine the process compound the problem...
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a fact that this conspiracy occurred.

    Look up the word "conspiracy" in the dictionary and then explain how this is not a conspiracy...
    I cant see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

    --Phil Jones, University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit

    There's nothing theoretical about this particular conspiracy...
    In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

    "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

    In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

    "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112102186.html
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Red herring fallacies.
      .
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Humans aren't damaging "the planet" in any way shape fashion or form. If we vanished tomorrow, there would be very little evidence that we ever existed within a few thousand years..
      Why will it take thousands of years if we aren't damaging it?

      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Fossil fuels are the only way to provide adequate, affordable power to most of Earth's population. Nuclear power is the only existing energy source that could replace fossil fuels.
      .
      And we are exhausting these resources and many others. Use of nuclear power can also do major damage to the planet as the Japanese recently experienced.
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Stem what tide? Short of killing off a few billion people, the world will continue to depend on fossil fuels until nuclear power becomes a viable replacement.
      You are talking in a circle. First establish the problem. THEN work on the solution.
      My point is that we are damaging the planet. Many want to deny this just like smokers who wanted to deny the harmful effects of their habit until it was too late. (And found "experts" to agree with them)
      It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself-- Th. Jefferson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
        Why will it take thousands of years if we aren't damaging it?
        Because it will take thousands of years for all of our buildings, roads and other infrastructure to be erased by geological processes.

        This is known as a blink of an eye in Earth time and the planet hasn't been damaged in the slightest.


        Originally posted by Localyokel
        And we are exhausting these resources and many others. Use of nuclear power can also do major damage to the planet as the Japanese recently experienced.
        We aren't "exhausting" any resources. Nuclear power didn't damage the planet at Fukushima. The damage was caused by one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded and a large tsunami. The planet wasn't damaged at all. The planet caused the damage.


        Originally posted by Localyokel
        You are talking in a circle. First establish the problem. THEN work on the solution.
        The only real problem is the fact that a couple of billion people need access to cheap and reliable energy in order to escape chronic poverty.

        Originally posted by Localyokel
        My point is that we are damaging the planet.
        Then you have no point.

        Originally posted by Localyokel
        Many want to deny this just like smokers who wanted to deny the harmful effects of their habit until it was too late. (And found "experts" to agree with them)
        Red herring fallacy.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #34
          Your repeatedly calling something a fallacy only belies that you don't understand it's meaning. There is no fallacy that smoking causes cancer but many chose to embrace ignorance instead of changing. This analogy is applicable in my argument as I believe it has become undeniable that we are damaging the planet by anyone capable of intelligent reasoning. Perhaps if 7 billion people to a huge crap in your front lawn you might have a better understanding of how enormous amounts of waste can harm our environment.

          Since you fail to even acknowledge that we are exhausting natural resources of the planet, I will assume your mind is completely closed on this subject.

          A nuclear power plant did do a whole hell of a lot of damage. I will take the opinion of the people who were there over this nonsense utterance.
          It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself-- Th. Jefferson

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
            Your repeatedly calling something a fallacy only belies that you don't understand it's meaning. There is no fallacy that smoking causes cancer but many chose to embrace ignorance instead of changing. This analogy is applicable in my argument as I believe it has become undeniable that we are damaging the planet by anyone capable of intelligent reasoning. Perhaps if 7 billion people to a huge crap in your front lawn you might have a better understanding of how enormous amounts of waste can harm our environment.
            Description of Red Herring

            A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
            1. Topic A is under discussion.
            2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
            3. Topic A is abandoned.


            This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

            http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

            Originally posted by Localyokel
            Since you fail to even acknowledge that we are exhausting natural resources of the planet, I will assume your mind is completely closed on this subject.
            You have yet to cite any evidence that we are "exhausting" any resources. If you care to cite a specific resource, I will be happy to prove to you that it is in no danger of being exhausted.

            Originally posted by Localyokel
            A nuclear power plant did do a whole hell of a lot of damage. I will take the opinion of the people who were there over this nonsense utterance.
            The nuclear power plant did not cause anything. The tsunami flooded its backup diesel generators. The tsunami caused the reactor core to meltdown.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #36
              I can't accept that you are this dense. You must just be messing with me. I'm out..
              It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself-- Th. Jefferson

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
                Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer or lung disease, the earth is flat and the holocaust was a hoax. Give me a break people. We are damaging this planet faster than it can repair itself. There are over 7 billion people on it consuming tons of energy, most of which is generated with fossil fuels. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure we might want to stem the tide a bit.
                Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
                Why will it take thousands of years if we aren't damaging it?


                And we are exhausting these resources and many others. Use of nuclear power can also do major damage to the planet as the Japanese recently experienced.


                You are talking in a circle. First establish the problem. THEN work on the solution.
                My point is that we are damaging the planet. Many want to deny this just like smokers who wanted to deny the harmful effects of their habit until it was too late. (And found "experts" to agree with them)
                Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
                Your repeatedly calling something a fallacy only belies that you don't understand it's meaning. There is no fallacy that smoking causes cancer but many chose to embrace ignorance instead of changing. This analogy is applicable in my argument as I believe it has become undeniable that we are damaging the planet by anyone capable of intelligent reasoning. Perhaps if 7 billion people to a huge crap in your front lawn you might have a better understanding of how enormous amounts of waste can harm our environment.

                Since you fail to even acknowledge that we are exhausting natural resources of the planet, I will assume your mind is completely closed on this subject.

                A nuclear power plant did do a whole hell of a lot of damage. I will take the opinion of the people who were there over this nonsense utterance.
                1. Couldn't grasp the concept of a red herring fallacy.
                2. Couldn't explain how "the planet" was being damaged.
                3. Couldn't identify any specific resources which were being "exhausted."




                Originally posted by Localyokel View Post
                I can't accept that you are this dense. You must just be messing with me. I'm out..
                Your last sentence was the only accurate thing you posted in this thread.
                Last edited by The Doctor; 11 Sep 15, 16:39.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X