There is no such thing as "climate science"

[petros]

Why? Does that sound like BS? If I gave you a link would you bother to follow it this time?

There are plenty of checks beyond publishing and a world full of commercial scientists sitting on more data than you can image gathered and compiled by very well funded teams using state of the art technique and equipment.

I've never heard of any open requests from funded research scientist for help other than trying to get corporate donations.

 

[Tonington]

Where would the psychologist fit in on studying a cold water species?

Do you understand what an example is? And what's your preoccupation with psychologists?

Published papers? I'm glad you brought it up.

Or it could be bakers, cab drivers, hockey players, and stay at home moms since pretty much anyone can write a climate paper and dub themself a climate scientist once all the other bakers, cab drivers, hockey players and stay at home moms peer review it.

Wake up man.

I'll admit I need to wake up when you can provide one published paper in the climate science sphere written by someone who defines their profession as a baker, or a cab driver, or a hockey player, or a stay at home mom, and deemed fit for publication on the review of a baker, or a cab driver, or a hockey player, or a stay at home mom.

Until then, you're off your rocker, which perhaps explains the preoccupation with psychology.

And as if to prove my point, counting one of these hypotheticals as a scientist and giving them equal weight to another scientist who actually does this for work and has published 100's of papers is stupid. A better indicator of the mainstream views is what is actually being published. That's the research. That's what matters.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The truly bizarre thing is that after a round of distortion, cherry-picking, and hair-splitting, I have no doubt petros gets up from the computer actually thinking he's won something.

 

[BornRuff]

Why? Does that sound like BS? If I gave you a link would you bother to follow it this time?

Lol, what link have you given me that I have not followed?

Yes, you need to cite your sources when giving numbers like that or everyone will assume you made it up.

There are plenty of checks beyond publishing and a world full of commercial scientists sitting on more data than you can image gathered and compiled by very well funded teams using state of the art technique and equipment.

I've never heard of any open requests from funded research scientist for help other than trying to get corporate donations.

Exactly what checks are there on non peer reviewed research?

 

[captain morgan]

Exactly what checks are there on non peer reviewed research?

'Peer review' was already determined as being crooked.

Look into it and you too will chuckle when you hear that term

 

[BornRuff]

'Peer review' was already determined as being crooked.

Look into it and you too will chuckle when you hear that term

Lol, what on earth are you talking about? This sounds like you might be reading a lot of stuff from people who are mad that their research can't get through peer review.

Obviously the process isn't perfect, but when you "look into it", what do they suggest as an alternative?

 

[petros]

Do you understand what an example is? And what's your preoccupation with psychologists?



I'll admit I need to wake up when you can provide one published paper in the climate science sphere written by someone who defines their profession as a baker, or a cab driver, or a hockey player, or a stay at home mom, and deemed fit for publication on the review of a baker, or a cab driver, or a hockey player, or a stay at home mom.

Until then, you're off your rocker, which perhaps explains the preoccupation with psychology.

And as if to prove my point, counting one of these hypotheticals as a scientist and giving them equal weight to another scientist who actually does this for work and has published 100's of papers is stupid. A better indicator of the mainstream views is what is actually being published. That's the research. That's what matters.

Maybe you need to follow along then perhaps you'll know what AGW paper packing climate psychologists have to do with the "climate scientist consensus".

Your reality based ideal of interdisciplinary research (which is a good thing) is not the same ideal shared amongst interdisciplinary so called climate scientists.

 

[BornRuff]

Maybe you need to follow along then perhaps you'll know what AGW paper packing climate psychologists have to do with the "climate scientist consensus".

Your reality based ideal of interdisciplinary research (which is a good thing) is not the same ideal shared amongst interdisciplinary so called climate scientists.

Dear god. Actually link to whatever "consensus" you are talking about or just shut up.

It is pointless to argue against nothing.

 

[Tonington]

Maybe you need to follow along

Well, maybe you should try clicking a few links on the Iowa State University program instead of asking others to tell you in multiple posts. If it's your fishing tactic, it really sucks.

It took less than 5 seconds to find out how the work of the one psychologist listed on that research team links up with the climate science program.

Say it with me:
in ter dis ci pli nar y

 

[petros]

I have that's where you'll find the psychologists/climate scientist. He is a climate scientist because he wrote a paper on the psychological effects of warming.

As a published consensus climate scientist is he contributing anything of value to the research of climatevmechamisms and drivers?

What is the purpose of the Climate Scientist moniker which is all inclusive if you write a paper.

These people are butching science.

 

[Tonington]

Dear god. Actually link to whatever "consensus" you are talking about or just shut up.

It is pointless to argue against nothing.

He's talking about a survey of petroleum and related industry experts in Alberta. What the ƒuck is up with Watts was plugging it last summer. You know, because it's not deceptive at all to split a demographic down to a subset and apply the results to the whole. PEI sure as hell isn't representative of Canada! lmao

The introduction in the paper lead with this quote from Senator James Inhoffe:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?​

I have that's where you'll find the psychologists/climate scientist. He is a climate scientist because he wrote a paper on the psychological effects of warming.

As a published consensus climate scientist is he contributing anything of value to the research of climatevmechamisms and drivers?

What is the purpose of the Climate Scientist moniker which is all inclusive if you write a paper.

These people are butching science.

Are you into the beer again? Impacts of climate change are definitely in the scope of climate science. It's retarded to suggest otherwise.

 

[EagleSmack]

Why would I even want to? I've never had a problem with them!

There is a whole thread back there that says the exact opposite.

The truly bizarre thing is that after a round of distortion, cherry-picking, and hair-splitting, I have no doubt petros gets up from the computer actually thinking he's won something.

That's what happens when you watch someone win something. Just saying.


Detroit just beat the Red Sox... I bet Detroit is now hitting the showers thinking they've won. (Probably)

 

[BornRuff]

I have that's where you'll find the psychologists/climate scientist. He is a climate scientist because he wrote a paper on the psychological effects of warming.

As a published consensus climate scientist is he contributing anything of value to the research of climatevmechamisms and drivers?

What is the purpose of the Climate Scientist moniker which is all inclusive if you write a paper.

These people are butching science.

Lol, says the person cobbling together unrelated chunks of information based on a phrase that you acknowledge isn't officially defined and claiming you are making any sort of point.

What the hell is a "published consensus climate scientist"?

That's what happens when you watch someone win something. Just saying.

Lol, do you want to link to any specific exchange that you think he "won"?

 

[petros]

He's talking about a survey of petroleum and related industry experts in Alberta. What the ƒuck is up with Watts was plugging it last summer. You know, because it's not deceptive at all to split a demographic down to a subset and apply the results to the whole. PEI sure as hell isn't representative of Canada! lmao

The introduction in the paper lead with this quote from Senator James Inhoffe:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?​

Are you into the beer again? Impacts of climate change are definitely in the scope of climate science. It's retarded to suggest otherwise.

Are you huffing seafloor gas hydrates?

What does psychology have to do with the mechanics of climate?

 

[BornRuff]

He's talking about a survey of petroleum and related industry experts in Alberta. What the ƒuck is up with Watts was plugging it last summer. You know, because it's not deceptive at all to split a demographic down to a subset and apply the results to the whole. PEI sure as hell isn't representative of Canada! lmao

The introduction in the paper lead with this quote from Senator James Inhoffe:

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?​

Are you into the beer again? Impacts of climate change are definitely in the scope of climate science. It's retarded to suggest otherwise.

We need him to answer this question. He loves to be vague about exactly what he is talking about so he can bend and twist it as much as possible if anyone tries to challenge him.

 

[EagleSmack]

Lol, do you want to link to any specific exchange that you think he "won"?

I was answering T-Bones BR... no need to freak out.


Read the threads and there will be no need for me to link.


You have a tough enough time following threads and linking as it is.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

How many of these do you have floating out there? lol

 

[BornRuff]

Are you huffing seafloor gas hydrates?

What does psychology have to do with the mechanics of climate?

If you think he was counted in any sort of survey on scientific consensus, show us which survey that was.

I was answering T-Bones BR... no need to freak out.


Read the threads and there will be no need for me to link.


You have a tough enough time following threads and linking as it is.

Lol, did I act like I cared who you were responding to?

If you are going to make a claim like that publicly, you should be able to provide one example.

Please go on.

How many of these do you have floating out there? lol

What? Links to studies that Petros referenced but is too lazy to directly link to?

 

[petros]

WTG NASA!!!

Climate Change: Consensus

 

[EagleSmack]

Lol, did I act like I cared who you were responding to?

Yes

If you are going to make a claim like that publicly, you should be able to provide one example.

But you are not smart. Why should I waste my time with a stupid person?

What? Links to studies that Petros referenced but is too lazy to directly link to?

A perfect example here. It was your link.

 

[BornRuff]

But you are not smart. Why should I waste my time with a stupid person?

You know what it usually means when someone resorts to personal attacks when pressed for basic information?

A perfect example here. It was your link.

Actually a great example of your lack of ability to read.

Petros referenced this study in this post: http://forums.canadiancontent.net/climate-change/124879-there-no-such-thing-climate.html#post1917345

He just linked to a news article that talked about it instead of the actual research.