Discussion in 'Tell Me About It' started by Berthold, Jul 22, 2019.
A new scientific publication about climate change
Fucking Hilarious...notice how four of the six citations are of their own previous papers?
And I love how you cite a paper from an ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS dept. while previously blasting non climatologist scientist's views on climatology. It's not a "scientific publication" either, as it needs to be vetted by the scientific community (peer reviewed) to be such...notice it's also NOT published in an actual journal. And not really knowing climatology myself, I do know a little about physics..and the relationships they try to convey are tedious at best..especially with cloud cover and temperature..not to mention their assumptions (or lack thereof) about why the cloud cover changed at all? This is worse than an 8th grade science project. This is what we call crank science...all they have proven is that they are idiot scientists (probably looking for some controversy to get a little notoriety) because they can't make it as real scientists. "OOOhh loooky ...if I cherry pick some observations, I can "PROVE" (their words) that thousands of actual peer reviewed publications are actually wrong"
AND "NO experimental evidence..." , are you fucking kidding me..that's like saying..well, we have no experimental evidence for why some stars explode in supernovae, so we have proven that stars dont ever blow up in supernovae.
May be its not enough.
Ohhhh burrrrn (obviously sarcastically flippant expression)
it's never enough,..that's what keeps physicists going...in fact, many people are like this ..not you though , you just keep grinding that wheel in the mud...going deeper and deeper
Berthold, I just held out that you were a skeptic of man made climate change...now I know you are just an all out denier..and it doesn't matter how much evidence is compiled..you will always be a denier and you will always look for confirmation of that bias.
Physics, especially thermodynamic and physical chemistry are the basic sciences of climatology. So the department of the Finnish university is o.k.
that is even more reason to vet out the physics moreso...they list this as a dept of physics..then the paper should have a complete description of physics relationships to climate phenomena. It's a crap paper
To quote Your own papers demonstrates that You work on details of the actual problem for a longer time already.
Albert Einstein quoted his own papers or nothing in the most time.
No, the paper was written for professionals. They know about basic relationship of climate and physics
WOW, okay...well, not really surprised..you leave more to the imagination as to your arguments than actually providing any content to your argument
Einstein, huh? figures you would elevate these deniers to someone of Einstein's caliber. Einstein also had a great capacity for doubting his own work..you know, because he knew that science consisted of a great deal of vetting by the community without making grand delusional statements like "We have proven..."
It's a bullshit paper, on it's own merit
I looked up the main author's body of work..surprised he authored this, ......I am reminded of Picasso's later work, when he lost the ability to effectively critically analyze his own work...all he could come up with in his later years was CRAP!!
anyway, you're a crank ...no need to belabor the point anymore
Yes exact, that's the essential point. This intellectual ability is missing in the scientists working for IPCC (I know 2 of these German "experts") and in the IPCC administration members. They are politicians.
Einstein, Picasso and Goethe are the only 3 human beings I really admire.
A forum member gave me a link to Peer review. Thank You.
Pleas take a minute or tow or three and have a look at there.
found a loophole , huh? you anti-science cranks are always good at that
geez, I wonder who sent you the link...who is this mysterious evader ? Will he or she ever reveal their true identity, or is it possible that Berthold just wants to give the impression he has an ally?
The concept of 'peer review' is inherent in any science class and many classes formalize the process. It is often discussed that because you are dealing with humans, a bias always enter the debate, we are not completely objective automatons. To mitigate this, journal publications usually require three to four peer reviews in the official process of publication. But peer review also includes post publication review and follow up studies. Peer review is also formalized in 'philosophy of subject matter' , whether it be philosophy of science, philosophy of history, etc..in the training of said students. I have never had constraints placed on me in any philosophy of science or history class I have taken that prevented me from critically analyzing a paper from a evidentiary based perspective...only feedback as to the strength of my arguments.
Modern science (as distinct from the Artistotle's science, or the sharing of knowledge) is not 100 percent exact...yet, you cranks base your denial on the occasional detractor to prop your claims that scientists don't have a complete enough picture. I have seen this bullshit in everything I have studied...from Holocaust history, Evolution to Cosmology...same old techniques of red herring and straw man arguments and just right out denial.
And here we are again, rehashing the same ole crap
I wont be growing orchids soon and will have no reason to visit this site anymore
So goodbye Berthold
But who can assist You understanding the world then? So I recommend to stay.
Why is this garbage allowed to be posted here? Climate change is real. But I shouldn’t have to state that on SlipperTalk. I don’t think anyone comes here to discuss climate science or politics. There are ample other fora in which to talk about that. So why is this post here? Admins?
I would be surprised if peer reviewers allowed the paper to be published with the current title. If you read it, it is incredibly narrow in scope. Basically, they essentially identified ONE flaw in ONE model of climate change. Regardless of whether or not this flaw actually exists (it may, I don't know enough about climate models to assess if their work is sound or not), it is a HUGE leap to go from "we found a flaw in one (or more) of the assumptions for a computational model of anthropogenic climate change" to "no experimental evidence for anthropogenic climate change." First, computational models aren't experimental evidence to begin with... they are used to support and direct experimental efforts. Second, there are many independent lines of evidence. So, just because you found a flaw in a model doesn't lead to the conclusion that there is "no evidence."
Separate names with a comma.