13,950 peer-reviews vs 24

13,950 peer-reviews vs 24.png


Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Please Login to comment
    12 Comment threads
    18 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    17 Comment authors
    Fido139GropegropeKorinthianFenJac Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    guest
    Guest
    guest

    Cute, but 99% of those articles are about describing climate, not about supporting CO2 hysteria. Only about 50 of those are in the form of “climate is funky, yo. Oh look, there’s a rich guy over there producing CO2. Let’s blame him for everything!!!” You know what causes one hell of a change in the climate? Altering the amount and location of fresh water. You know, like the gazillion of gallons of fresh water currently trapped inside water bottles, beers, sodas, and in the plumbing of cities, and generally water that should be out there in the environment doing what… Read more »

    skndrbg
    Guest
    skndrbg

    I’ve seen the lefty affection for anally plucked “facts” before so I have to ask…. is the activist sure it wasn’t 13,949? If only there wasn’t so much dishonesty and sleaze among the warmer cult, motivated by funding, tenure, employment, publicity etc. There was a time when a heliocentric view was scorned by “peer reviewed” bumpf. The self-aggrandizing, self-enriching posturing of the Gore-ites obscures things like resource depletion, pollution, over population, and more. When the question “will I be funded if I publish contrary data?” is answered with “Not bloody likely!” then the elements of commerce outweigh science.

    WistfulD
    Member

    So your entire argument is that researchers have an incentive to lie? How about an argument that shows that some other action is creating a slow-but-progressive increase in average temperatures? No? Good luck being taken seriously. The entire conspiracy theory depends on tens of thousands of scientists keeping a secret, when you have already stipulated that these people are sleazy and dependent on publicity. How long would you think a secret like that would remain hidden? Learn how to make a rational argument, please.

    bob
    Guest
    bob

    Those 24 articles were probably written by the same 3 dudes who got autism from their vaccinations.

    dallasalice
    Member

    Cough, cough, bullshit. First of all peer review doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore since there is so much corruption among so called objective scientists who are being courted by funding and tenure and the fame of being published. Michael Mann is a proven liar whose hockey stick nonsense has been debunked and who keeps losing lawsuits over it. Secondly, well, despite the NYT articles – snow isn’t disappearing, artic ice is not receding, and the Earth is not warming. It would be better if it were because that would be preferable to the mini-ice age we are entering. Oh,… Read more »

    bob
    Guest
    bob

    Red flags for intelligent discussion:

    “Evolution is a theory!” -Doesn’t understand what a theory is.

    “Obama is a fascist!” -Means communist. Cannot adequately distinguish between Communism, Socialism, Fascism.

    “Global warming is a hoax! Look at the snow in my driveway!” -Means I have my fingers in my ears.

    wunderkind
    Guest

    Uh….. well wouldja look at his avitar!

    OverlyManlyMan
    Guest
    OverlyManlyMan

    Actually “fascist” isn’t strictly a left wing or right wing concept. Stalin, for example, was both left wing AND a fascist.

    [img]http://s12.postimg.org/5qn2fgf2l/Fascism.jpg[/img]

    WistfulD
    Member

    Sort of. The Soviet Union was founded on ‘leftist’ ideology of Marx, but it never really worked in a manner that leftists (or even socialists) would recognize as part of their ideology.

    jpmct
    Guest
    jpmct

    So, a large number of people on the government payroll are told to express a certain opinion or lose their jobs.

    …and a small number of people are honest.

    What has happened to your generation that you think this is honesty?

    LordDoug
    Member

    So, when you are given evidence of a scientific consensus among stringent, peer-reviewed papers, you take that as evidence of a government sponsored coverup. You find it more plausible that thousands of experts in this field are just getting paid to lie, after devoting their life to becoming experts. You have essentially disqualified, in your eyes, the people who are best suited to actually understand the science behind climate and weather. So who does that leave you to trust?

    Fen
    Guest
    Fen

    The “97% consensus” is myth. Its from a survey where they polled 3,146 scientists and then threw out all but 79 to achieve their “97%” (77 of 79)

    The actual number is 77 of 3146 = 0.2%

    Gropegrope
    Member

    I am unaware of the study you cite.
    There are quite a number of studies I’ve read that put the percentage of consensus at about 97%…..but I’ve never seen the one you mention.

    A reference perhaps….?

    Gropegrope
    Member

    I found your study…..done in 2008.
    They surveyed a scientists from every discipline if they believed there was a man made cause behind climate change.

    Scientists who studied climate agreed with 97% consensus.
    The overall rate of scientists across all disciplines was over 80%
    Interestingly, petroleum geologists were the only group below 50%.

    Regardless, that’s an 8 year old snapshot, and there’s been a ton of science done and consensus studies since…..showing the science community’s consensus is actually rising.

    Fen
    Guest
    Fen

    Its not my study. Its yours. Its were all the idiots get the “97% of scientists” myth. The methodology of the study was flawed (ie it would have failed peer review)

    They polled 3,146 scientists and then threw out all but 79 to achieve their “97%” (77 of 79)

    The actual number is 77 of 3146 = 0.2%

    Fen
    Guest
    Fen

    Its not my study. Its yours. Its were all the idiots get the “97% of scientists” myth. The methodology of the study was flawed (ie it would have failed peer review)

    They polled 3,146 scientists and then threw out all but 79 to achieve their “97%” (77 of 79)

    The actual number is 77 of 3146 = 0.2%

    Gropegrope
    Member

    You didn’t read the study.
    They polled over 3,000 scientists and found that the consensus was over 80%.
    Then they look specifically at scientists that published papers on climate change, the consensus was 97%.

    So the vast majority of scientists agree.
    And practically all scientists where its their area of study agree.

    Nothing suspicious here.
    You’re the one who quoted the 97% and ignored the rest of the study….not me.

    Strawman…..?

    jpmct
    Guest
    jpmct

    …oh, and I might add that this graph could also describe the number of people in the 16th century who believed (according to “consensus”)that the sun revolved around the earth.

    …as opposed to Galileo, who preached the truth…and was persecuted for it.

    Gropegrope
    Member

    Actually, the majority of astronomers that got to see Galileo’s theory, immediately recognized it for the accurate model it was.
    The church suppressed his theory, not the science community.

    But, you’ve made some kind of point.
    So….your accurate alternative model to climate change is….?

    Gropegrope
    Member

    Or….are you suggesting that we, like that “majority” of people in the 16th century, are believing the word of a powerful, established industry that has a huge stake in our belief in that fantasy……and not believing the actual science and scientists on this one…..?

    I would say there are strong parallels to the 16th century.
    And once again the scientists are right.

    Fen
    Guest
    Fen

    Fail. Peer review doesn’t mean its true. Peer review only means your paper was cleared for following basic scientific principles. Its common for peer reviewed papers to be debunked once someone tries to replicate the experiments.

    Gropegrope
    Member

    So where are your “debunkings” then…..?

    Remember, that”debunkings” are generally published as peer reviewed papers…..and would have been counted in this study.

    What only 24, compared to over 13,000….?

    Hmmm…….

    Fen
    Guest
    Fen

    You still don’t understand what “peer reviewed” means.

    But I don’t need to convince you. In 5 years you’ll be pretending you never believed in this bullshit.

    Gropegrope
    Member

    How many articles have you actually contributed to peer reviewed publications friend…..?

    freenelsonmandela
    Guest
    freenelsonmandela

    GAY

    only a total jew or negroid would believe in the climate boogie man

    amazingalaskan
    Member

    The world being flat was peer reviewed. We all know how that turned out.

    Nurgen
    Member
    Nurgen

    The fact that the Earth is (more or less) spherical was established WELL before the scientific method saw widespread use.

    Jac
    Guest
    Jac

    You know this blog should really stick to pictures of attractive women in costumes… if I want to study out climate change, feminism or politics I have plenty of places reddit available to farking do so.

    Korinthian
    Member

    Evidence in support of a conpiracy theory proves that the theory is true.

    Evidence against a conspiracy theory proves that the theory is true.

    Evidence that the conspiracy theorist is insane proves that the conspiracy theorist is one of the few sane people left and fuck Obama and his liberal mind control flouride.

    Fido139
    Guest

    A hot topic indeed. Notice “peer reviewed”. Again the numbers are skewed as described by this video, which EVERYONE should watch (and learn something), whether you believe this “theory” or not. I’ve done plenty of my own research over years, I know for a fact this is a skewed theory.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ