Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#115071 - 03/17/13 10:04 PM Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...ming-alarmists/

Even as MSM and extreme lefties go about foaming at the mouth to confirm their bias, luckily there is some real science still occurring on the topic.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#115076 - 03/18/13 03:39 AM Re: Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
Global warming denials are out there with evolutionary denials. Go buy oceanfront property if you are so sure.


#115085 - 03/18/13 04:17 AM Re: Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504

Article read fail. Comprehension fail. You shouldnt be so scared of assimilating new info just because it isnt pre-approved for extremist consumption by the mouth foamers over at Mother Jones.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#115087 - 03/18/13 04:24 AM Re: Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
If one to read only Mother Jones or opinion section of WSJ, I'd bet MJ reader would be more informed.

I read somewhere about conservative media conference where all lead conservative voices got together and were discussing return to journalism. Last I hear, they decided to blame lack of journalistic integrity on the right on Obama.


#115089 - 03/18/13 04:34 AM Re: Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504

A point that might (for the sake of argument) hypothetically have relevance if the OP was a WSJ article.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#115094 - 03/18/13 11:36 AM Re: Warmest temperatures in 4k yrs claim = bad science [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,505
Helemoto Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Helemoto  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,505
Nebraska,Omaha
Originally Posted By: sini
Global warming denials are out there with evolutionary denials. Go buy oceanfront property if you are so sure.


foil


[Linked Image]
#115103 - 03/18/13 03:42 PM Re: Forbes on climate = bad journalism [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
If you actually read the article - it does not refute the study in any form. It mostly criticizes media, does couple weak character assassination attempts, and cites some methodology concerns (that would not invalidate the study) from the previous study.

This type of "impossible standard" attack is the only way they can attempt to discredit what is now very uncontroversial scientific consensus.

Consider this: Any study that could soundly disprove "global warming" would not only have unlimited budget from Big Oil, Big Coal and such, but would also guarantee publications for life, probably a Nobel, tenure, and more fame than could be had anywhere else in the climate science field.


#115106 - 03/18/13 04:42 PM Re: Forbes on climate = bad journalism [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,504

I suggest googling up the references, heck it actually linked to several works cited criticizing the study. I suggest you read again.

That you even think that the refutation was of "global warming" shows that you either did not read the article, or have a very low level of reading comprehension.

What this article was highlighting, is the refutation of an "alarmist" study that had gotten media attention for the study, but not the refutation when it turns out to be bad science.

The article was not about refuting global warming , it was about how certain sectors hyperventilate over untested claims that end up withering under peer review simply because it makes for titillating news.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#115109 - 03/18/13 07:09 PM Re: Forbes on climate = bad journalism [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,047
You are reading too much into that article. It boils down to "media on the right always wrong, they report it, so this must be wrong". It was a anti-global warming hit article.


#115113 - 03/18/13 09:07 PM Re: Forbes on climate = bad journalism [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,505
Helemoto Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Helemoto  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,505
Nebraska,Omaha
Originally Posted By: sini
If you actually read the article - it does not refute the study in any form. It mostly criticizes media, does couple weak character assassination attempts, and cites some methodology concerns (that would not invalidate the study) from the previous study.

This type of "impossible standard" attack is the only way they can attempt to discredit what is now very uncontroversial scientific consensus.

Consider this: Any study that could soundly disprove "global warming" would not only have unlimited budget from Big Oil, Big Coal and such, but would also guarantee publications for life, probably a Nobel, tenure, and more fame than could be had anywhere else in the climate science field.


foil


[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Page Time: 0.021s Queries: 16 (0.005s) Memory: 3.1337 MB (Peak: 3.2429 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-01-20 19:14:53 UTC