Not necessarily. If he believes what he says then he is not lying. He may be wrong but he's not lying.
: marked by or containing falsehoods :
Yes, they are seriously wrong. That is if you are referring to the pundits. Most the scientists involved have good research, but their material is misused by the pundits.You really HATE to lose an argument.
Bottom line, the climate change bozos have been proven WRONG, just like the global cooling bozos and then the global warming bozos.
I don't recognize your reference. Do you expect everyone to?What is your major malfunction, PYLE?
“Let’s stop pretending peer review works,” write Julia Belluz and Steven Hoffman at Vox.
Ph.D. in ecology seems relevant.
Typical Vox click bait, IMO. It's sort of like the old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
Well, there are different implementations of peer review. I am for an "open" peer review process.
Not sure what that means in this context. An "open" peer review happens every time a paper is published, if the findings are at all significant.
The 'peer review' in traditional use is a way to decide what articles to publish. I'm not sure how an open review process would work in that context. Journal X gets 100 or 500 submissions, can publish 5 per quarter. Traditional peer review is part of how that gets determined.
Generally, the reviewers are not known to the scientists making the article, and vise-versa.
There is little recourse if a skeptic gets denied publishing because the reviewers are part of the 97%.
Ever consider that on publication rates? If the reviewers are blatantly biased in their selections or criticize, there is no way of holding them accountable.
I think you missed my point.If you're saying that's the process at the top journals, correct. It's intended to be blind both ways. For various reasons, it doesn't always work because the number of experts in a narrow field is fairly small, but that's the goal.
That's a danger for sure, but ultimately, and researchers figure this out fairly quickly, significant theories/results either work or don't and it doesn't matter what the reviewers do.
The way theories are held accountable isn't really whether they're published but whether they 'work' in future research. It's really that simple. So over a fairly short period of time, science is what holds the science accountable, not reviewers.
I think you missed my point.
There is too much potential of cherry picking what scientists already believe. This is too contentious of a field to allow this type of publication selection to continue.
I think you missed my point.
There is too much potential of cherry picking what scientists already believe. This is too contentious of a field to allow this type of publication selection to continue.
And if you don't want this selection method to continue, you have to suggest a better alternative, and I don't know of one.
Oh, and I'm not ignorant of any SCIENCE.
A bunch of money hungry political scientists trying to get grant money from socialists by reading computer models all day long does NOT equate to any kind of SCIENCE at all.
Hell, you might as well get predictions from 20 somethings who live at home with their parents and play video games all day long. You might actually get more science out of them.
WRONG.
NOAA?s Own Data Shows That Global Climate Has Cooled Over 10 Years
NOAA’s Own Data Shows That Global Climate Has Cooled Over 10 Years [/
Data from the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that the United States has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade.
Not necessarily. If he believes what he says then he is not lying. He may be wrong but he's not lying.
Why do you care whatsoever whether someone is a climatologist? Do you accept what science says?Dr. Moore is not a climatologist and so is not an expert on the subject. There is no reason I should have faith in him.
The open review process, where the reviewers are known and named.
Why do you care whatsoever whether someone is a climatologist? Do you accept what science says?
If a fifth-grader were to show you the science that says one thing, why would you believe anyone who is telling you the opposite?
Shouldn't you go with what science says?
What is moderate about you?
Why to all far leftists think they are "moderate?"
True.
Then again does anybody think he actually believes what he is saying?
My problem is that the OP did not directly present any actual evidence against global warming, only the opinion of a non-expert on the subject.
Once these so called 'experts'can present empirical evidence or indeed any kind of compelling case why this modest warming phase is somehow different from the dozens of others since the last ice age I'll start believing them.
So far the silence on that front has been deafening.
Ice Cores
This is the agenda driven hijacking of a natural phenomenon to suit poltical ends nothing more
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?