global warming not accurate?

[jillio]

sorry didnt reply sooner...

Another debunk...

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer | ThinkProgress

Peer review in science... I want it to be reviewed by scientists, not what an amateur guy says. Roy Spencer is not a scientist, he's a lobbyist for oil and tobacco companies.

And you know that when a "scientist" say there's no harm in second hand smoke - *cough* - he's lying. Many experiments have shown it to be harmful and many people who lived in houses with smoke developed lung cancer that is statistically higher than those who live in non-smoking houses.

Secondhand Smoke

Remember how tobacco companies tried to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous because they know they stand to lose money and don't want to be sued? It's EXACTLY the same tactics they use with global warming. They skew results to suit their agenda which is basically to make more money and to make them not liable for the harm they've done to the earth.

Yep. Like I said, all peer reviews are not created equally. That is why one needs to read the methods section.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yep. Like I said, all peer reviews are not created equally. That is why one needs to read the methods section.

I have a question that's been bothering me for a while now. How does the average layperson with only a very basic or limited knowleage of science understand the methods that that's used in a study. I do not have a great deal of training in science.

 

[netrox]

All that despite the fact that it's "peer reviewed". I've noticed that when skeptics make the same points about pro-global warming scientists and the papers they publish, the standard response is "But it's peer reviewed!!!" Are pro-AGW scientists exempt from such criticism? If not, why not?

Of course, pro-AGW scientists will get criticism if their methodology is wrong. That's EXACTLY what peer review is. Ever heard of "Open Letter to Editor?"

 

[jillio]

I have a question that's been bothering me for a while now. How does the average layperson with only a very basic or limited knowleage of science understand the methods that that's used in a study. I do not have a great deal of training in science.

Generally, no. That is why, exactly, that we have seen so much research misquoted and misused by hearing parents in this forum. Most of it is regarding CI kids and oral lanugage development. But when you actually see the research paper and evaluate it, using the methods section, you can see that it is not claiming what these parents think it is, nor is it anywhere close to generalizable for the whole pediatric implant population. Equally important is to see who financed the study.

It is not so much scientific knowledge, but more in the field of reseach methodology and statistical analysis. All research designs, no matter the discipline, will use the same methods of design and statistical procedures.

 

[netrox]

I have a question that's been bothering me for a while now. How does the average layperson with only a very basic or limited knowleage of science understand the methods that that's used in a study. I do not have a great deal of training in science.

It's a matter of faith on them. I would rather listen to what scientists have to say over people who know little about science or have preconceived ideas about things based on rigid ideologies.

I knew a couple of guys with HIV who denied that HIV leads to AIDS so they refused medicine. Well, they're dead.

 

[darkdog]

Of course, pro-AGW scientists will get criticism if their methodology is wrong. That's EXACTLY what peer review is. Ever heard of "Open Letter to Editor?"

I mean do you think such criticisms against the pro-AGW guys and their papers are ever valid?

 

[darkdog]

Generally, no. That is why, exactly, that we have seen so much research misquoted and misused by hearing parents in this forum. Most of it is regarding CI kids and oral lanugage development. But when you actually see the research paper and evaluate it, using the methods section, you can see that it is not claiming what these parents think it is, nor is it anywhere close to generalizable for the whole pediatric implant population. Equally important is to see who financed the study.

It is not so much scientific knowledge, but more in the field of reseach methodology and statistical analysis. All research designs, no matter the discipline, will use the same methods of design and statistical procedures.

So, what specifically is wrong with this one?

 

[jillio]

So, what specifically is wrong with this one?

You can't tell from reading the methods section? I thought you had knowledge and experience with research.

 

[deafskeptic]

It's a matter of faith on them. I would rather listen to what scientists have to say over people who know little about science or have preconceived ideas about things based on rigid ideologies.

I knew a couple of guys with HIV who denied that HIV leads to AIDS so they refused medicine. Well, they're dead.

Nod. It's the same with doctors. I would take their advice on medical stuff over some faith healers on medical matters. I even have a working knowlege of medical stuff. However. as they say a little knowledge is dangerous and I have a touch of the hypochondriasic in me at times so I make sure I'm fine an that i'm not panicing.

 

[jillio]

Nod. It's the same with doctors. I would take their advice on medical stuff over some faith healers on medical matters. I even have a working knowlege of medical stuff. However. as they say a little knowledge is dangerous and I have a touch of the hypochondriasic in me at times so I make sure I'm fine an that i'm not panicing.

Exactly. The average Joe does not need to understand how to evaluate research. Look at the qualifications of the persons responsible for the study. You at least know the probability of their expertise by that.

 

[deafskeptic]

Exactly. The average Joe does not need to understand how to evaluate research. Look at the qualifications of the persons responsible for the study. You at least know the probability of their expertise by that.

Nor would I take doctors' advice on how to educate deaf children. The results have been a good deal less than dersiable as they will have a bias towards oralism.

 

[netrox]

Nor would I take doctors' advice on how to educate deaf children. The results have been a good deal less than dersiable as they will have a bias towards oralism.

If you view deafness as pathology then it will be treated as one. A lot of times, the "cure" or "treatment" does more harm than leaving it alone.

But what's the agenda behind global warming? I mean, really? Scientists decided that this warming period is man made... what's the opposite of "think tanks" and energy companies behind the global warming theory? Tree huggers with trillions of dollars paying those global warming scientists? :/

What about evolution theory? Creationists spend time ATTACKING the theory while offering NO evidence for creation. You know what their agenda is - they do it because they believe Genesis should be taken literally. What's the movement behind evolution theory? A bunch of God-hating demonic scientists conspire to destroy the Bible?

 

[darkdog]

You can't tell from reading the methods section? I thought you had knowledge and experience with research.

Oh, it's just that I sort of bet someone you couldn't list any specific problems with the methodology despite having criticized it. You'll claim you can and either laugh (probably this emoticon: ) and/or try to make me look dumb, but you will never ever ever list a single thing to back up your post no matter what.

 

[jillio]

Oh, it's just that I sort of bet someone you couldn't list any specific problems with the methodology despite having criticized it. You'll claim you can and either laugh (probably this emoticon: ) and/or try to make me look dumb, but you will never ever ever list a single thing to back up your post no matter what.

Yeah, I heard about the PMs you have been sending out all over the forum.

BUSTED! And it didn't help your credibility any, either.

Doesn't this meet the criteria of trolling? Why,yes, I do believe it does.

 

[darkdog]

Yeah, I heard about the PMs you have been sending out all over the forum.

BUSTED! And it didn't help your credibility any, either.

You've just busted me for... using the PM feature? Alex is gonna be pissed! As for the part about sort of betting someone, it's not really a busting if I said it myself. So, what are we left with here... that I didn't mention how I made the kinda-sorta bet? By the way, I also bet my wife the same thing... through sign language. Oh man, I'm so busted!

Doesn't this meet the criteria of trolling? Why,yes, I do believe it does.

A troll is someone who provokes members into flaming discussions by posting outrageous messages, and usually ends with name callings and flame wars.

If you set the bar of "outrageous" to anything I've said here, then we're all trolls.

 

[jillio]

You've just busted me for... using the PM feature? Alex is gonna be pissed! As for the part about sort of betting someone, it's not really a busting if I said it myself. So, what are we left with here... that I didn't mention how I made the kinda-sorta bet? By the way, I also bet my wife the same thing... through sign language. Oh man, I'm so busted!



If you set the bar of "outrageous" to anything I've said here, then we're all trolls.

Dude, you are really a glutton for punishment. How many times do you need to be humiliated in order to fullfil that perverse need for punishment? You have destroyed any amount of credibility you may have once had with everyone on this forum. Trying to preserve it with defensive explanations isn't helping.

It is busting when it was known for a significant amount of time prior to your admitting it. You were led into having to admit it, and don't even realize it. You are out of your league. LOL