Climate Change Report

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-14-2014, 09:10 AM
Delcry

This is a sobering thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by French foreign minister Laurent Fabius

Well, I’m very happy to be with John. There is no week without a phone call or a visit between John and myself, and we have on the agenda many items, many issues – Iran, because negotiations are resuming today; the question of Syria, and we shall meet next Thursday in London together; Ukraine as well; and very important issues, issue of climate change, climate chaos. And we have – as I said, we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos. And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success on this very important matter.

Mark down September 26, 2015 on your calendar and make peace with whoever you pray to.
05-14-2014, 10:15 AM
waywardgs

John Oliver's take on the climate debate:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5710538...limate-deniers
05-14-2014, 05:01 PM
Latrinsorm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thondalar

My bias? It makes no difference to me, politically, whether man-made global warming is an issue or not. Hell, it'd probably be more in my favor to go along with it. I'm simply calling it like I see it, like I do everything. It's bullshit "science" promulgated by people with an actual bias.

I get that you believe that, and that in general you believe yourself to be unbiased. I'm just telling you that you are, you can't see it, and it's why you don't understand the science. I mean, you're seriously comparing the National Academy of Sciences to Al Gore.
05-16-2014, 09:59 AM
Parkbandit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...professor.html

So THIS is how consensus is created. Use the parts you agree with and deny anything else publication.

CONSENSUS REACHED!
05-16-2014, 10:03 AM
waywardgs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...professor.html

So THIS is how consensus is created. Use the parts you agree with and deny anything else publication.

CONSENSUS REACHED!

That's just about the shittiest reporting I've read in a long time.
05-16-2014, 10:09 AM
Parkbandit

Quote:

Originally Posted by waywardgs

That's just about the shittiest reporting I've read in a long time.

Seriously. Plus it's British, so it probably can't be trusted.

MARGINALIZE ATTEMPT SUCCESSFUL!
05-16-2014, 10:15 AM
waywardgs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Seriously. Plus it's British, so it probably can't be trusted.

MARGINALIZE ATTEMPT SUCCESSFUL!

lol. C'mon, PB, read the article again. Normal journalistic procedure is to attempt to reach the other party for comment. We aren't even given the name of the journal, let alone any comment from them. All we have to go on is that this guy says his ground-breaking study is being "covered up." The one quote from a "reviewer" who called the study "less than helpful" not only lacks any context but is left uncited and attributed to said unnamed "reviewer." It's a silly link. I encourage you to try harder next time. You get a D, and I'm being generous.

Edit: Ah, I see where they talked to the journal. "‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.

‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’
05-16-2014, 10:15 AM
Whirlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...professor.html

So THIS is how consensus is created. Use the parts you agree with and deny anything else publication.

CONSENSUS REACHED!

I dunno, I read the article, and everything appears to be centralized around the guy that simply didn't get his article published.
Besides his own complaints (which comes across as crying that his article didn't get published), the entire basis for the article seems to leverage this one line:

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Which is a third party discussing what someone 'reportedly' said, which to me is incredibly skeptical. Furthermore, the actual quote implies that the article isn't up to the level of scientific scrutiny required to be a part of a scientific journal. For all we know, his entire article could have been a one liner that simply said:
"CO2 doesn't cause global warming, so the world is safe."

Everything else in the article was general information about the current environment (heh) regarding the environment, and was less about his scientific method, or the strength of the professors' case.
05-16-2014, 10:34 AM
cwolff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whirlin

Everything else in the article was general information about the current environment (heh) regarding the environment, and was less about his scientific method, or the strength of the professors' case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Edit: Ah, I see where they talked to the journal. "‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.

‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’

This does raise the question: Why is this being reported anyway? WW posted the John Oliver clip which runs on the same theme. If there's some 97% consensus on the ACC question, then why do the 3% get equal time in the news, especially when one considers the theory that MSM has a liberal bias.
05-16-2014, 10:37 AM
Parkbandit

Quote:

Originally Posted by waywardgs

lol. C'mon, PB, read the article again. Normal journalistic procedure is to attempt to reach the other party for comment. We aren't even given the name of the journal, let alone any comment from them. All we have to go on is that this guy says his ground-breaking study is being "covered up." The one quote from a "reviewer" who called the study "less than helpful" not only lacks any context but is left uncited and attributed to said unnamed "reviewer." It's a silly link. I encourage you to try harder next time. You get a D, and I'm being generous.

Edit: Ah, I see where they talked to the journal. "‘This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.

‘As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper.’

I at least deserve a C+.

Please reconsider. I need this grade.

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page