Obama

[flip]

As Flip no doubt would explain to you, the reason why journals regarding science and medical stuff (among other stuff) have to be peer reviewed is because these fields require a considerable amount of training and knowledge. Also, it requires a consider amount of integrity for these sources to be trustworthy. A peer review will spot holes in a paper and give feed back on the subject. If someone is cheating on the expermint, a peer review can spot that. If one wants to be a good scientist, one has to factor for personal bias and not let their personal political views affect the results if they are to be taken seriously by their peers.

If these journals were to let in everyone whose views are clearly not knowledgeable, they'd lose credibility. Here's a quote from Dr. Evan Harris:

“We are bombarded daily with scientific (and pseudoscientific) claims from newspapers, internet, radio and television programmes. Though MPs consider themselves experienced sifters for the truth, it is often extremely difficult to know what to believe. Sense About Science’s guide to peer review will help MPs and their researchers in this regard because peer review, and an understanding of its role, is essential to distinguish good science from flawed science and mere conjecture.” BTW, it's not just science journals which needs to be peer reviewed.

Oh they will allow a different view from the majority of their professions but it has to be a sound argument to be accepted by a peer reviewed journal. I'd much rather get my information from trustworthy sources than from someone with an axe to grind.

Koknut repeats the same arguments, even if the flaws have been pointed out, so a "scientific" discussion with him is perhaps pointless. This typical of faith based arguments. He belive in something, and will do anything to prove his belif. I have noticed that climate scientist, included skeptics he post links to, use the term "not sure" a lot. It's something funny going on here when Koknut claims he knows it all, when the scientists he refers to "not are sure" or "belive".

Koknut even ask for bomb proof evidence and try to score points on that one, while he claims he is a scientist. Wonder what kind of earth science he really is doing. Roadworker digging soil? LOL

I am sure you know this all, but as you said, perhaps other people would like to know before they try to enage into a discussion with him

(PS. message to Koknut; it's still a thiny 3 percent of climate scientist that agree with you).

 

[deafskeptic]

Koknut repeats the same arguments, even if the flaws have been pointed out, so a "scientific" discussion with him is perhaps pointless. This typical of faith based arguments. He belive in something, and will do anything to prove his belif. I have noticed that climate scientist, included skeptics he post links to, use the term "not sure" a lot. It's something funny going on here when Koknut claims he knows it all, when the scientists he refers to "not are sure" or "belive".

Koknut even ask for bomb proof evidence and try to score points on that one, while he claims he is a scientist. Wonder what kind of earth science he really is doing. Roadworker digging soil? LOL

I am sure you know this all, but as you said, perhaps other people would like to know before they try to enage into a discussion with him

(PS. message to Koknut; it's still a thiny 3 percent of climate scientist that agree with you).

My post was intended for other readers and not just for KokNUT.

 

[kokonut]

My post was intended for other readers and not just for KokNUT.

An example of an ad homenim attack. Very nice. A very mature thing to do.

 

[kokonut]

He has been doing that for years. He has absolutely NO independent thinking... none.

And you?

Riiiight.

Might want to define exactly what constitutes "independent thinking."

 

[kokonut]

Prezy Obama's approval rating falls below 50% for the first time. The slide downward continues. Gee, the first graph was on July 8, 2009. The second one today. That's 16 days his approval rating still continue to slide downward.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Well, gee. Obama went down to -11 on approval rating index. That didn't take long. Wonder how low he can go. Feels like the limbo dance.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

 

[kokonut]

Koknut repeats the same arguments, even if the flaws have been pointed out, so a "scientific" discussion with him is perhaps pointless. This typical of faith based arguments. Koko - Um, faith based arguments comes from people who say that Earth is gonna boil (ok, a hyperbole there) and that water level is gonna come up, all the ice in the north pole to disappear, glaciers disappearing forever....all under the guise that man is the culprit and cause for "global warming." No proof of that. None. There is no way of proving this. None. Do not consider supposed "evidence" as proof either. Proof is one thing. Evidence is another. Otherwise it'd become a faith base effort. I'm pointing that out where there is no proof that global warming is the cause of mankind based on hundreds or even thousands of *PEER-REVIEWED* articles by research scientists that show otherwise.

He belive in something, and will do anything to prove his belif. This is based on extensive research. I have noticed that climate scientist, included skeptics he post links to, use the term "not sure" a lot. It's something funny going on here when Koknut claims he knows it all, when the scientists he refers to "not are sure" or "belive". Kokonut - Again, the research *IS* extensive with thousands of research papers that questions or debunks claims that man is the cause and culprit of global warming. It's really funny, folks. You have a couple of guys who grouse that I don't post supporting peer-reviewed papers that backs up and support my arguments that man isn't the cause of global warming and when I do (e.g. lag time studies on temp and CO2 increase) they go about calling it "faith based." It's highly ironic to see people so in love in this new religion that we must act first because just suppose it's true!

Koknut even ask for bomb proof evidence and try to score points on that one, while he claims he is a scientist. Wonder what kind of earth science he really is doing. Roadworker digging soil? LOL Koko - No. It's hydrology, geology, air, water quality, fire ecosystem, fishery, water law, and hydrogeology. I work with other scientists and researchers as well. I do hours of research every day for each project I work on which includes doing field work and obtaining additional data. And write up anywhere from several pages up to 80 pages of my own research report on my findings. Something that few people realize what a scientist does. The bomb thing was to prove a point that it'd be pretty darn hard to destroy Earth, no matter how hard you try. I thought you saw through that. Again, what's with all the continuing ad hominem attacks? How about committing and concentrating on making defensible arguments instead? I like a challenge.

I am sure you know this all, but as you said, perhaps other people would like to know before they try to enage into a discussion with him Koko - you can try. I'm sure they'll listen. What are you afraid then? A rather curious response from you.

(PS. message to Koknut; it's still a thiny 3 percent of climate scientist that agree with you).Koko - Psst! Again, that 3% is meaningless. It's just a percent and doesn't say anything about actual numbers. This should be easy for anybody, even by you guys, to understand the concept that projection of future world temperatures is a not a scientific reality. It's a prediction only and nothing about reality. Are you actually saying that you can predict accurately what the temperatures will be like into the far future? Even you can't be that credulous ... or are you?

My responses are in red. Read at your own risk.

 

[kokonut]

As Flip no doubt would explain to you, the reason why journals regarding science and medical stuff (among other stuff) have to be peer reviewed is because these fields require a considerable amount of training and knowledge. Koko - I already provided them. Where are his? Also, it requires a consider amount of integrity for these sources to be trustworthy. A peer review will spot holes in a paper and give feed back on the subject. Koko - well, that's one aspect. Here is something that you fail to realize. Surprising as it may seem we know very little on the integrity of a peer-review process. It's a given. Even from well respected journals. Look around. I've come across those things over the years so it does happen. There have been rejections of papers high in value and quality. There have been papers rejected solely on the basis of status quo (e.g. skeptic scientists' papers get rejected numerous times). A peer-review process is an honor based process. It's not perfect but it's the best we have right now. Your peers review your papers and they judge them on the merits of several things ranging from accuracy, integrity, honesty, unbiased writings to even proper formatting styles. A peer review process can also be "politics in action" in many cases as well rather than having it review on the merits of science itself instead. My 188-page thesis covered in the area of geophysics, hydrogeology, contaminant modeling, and geology was a 4 1/2 year effort, was peer reviewed by 5 professors and a few graduates, and I had to defend my work orally for almost 2 hours with questions and challenges from professors and students alike (it's protocol so it's not out of the ordinary here). Politics played a role at my university when one PhD student's dissertation paper (I believe it was like 400 page thick!) was rejected by one professor. It was known that this professor was biased against this PhD student for years. It story but it can and does get political in a peer-review process. You need to consider the other side of the fence by peer reviewers themselves when it comes to personal bias.

If someone is cheating on the expermint, a peer review can spot that. If one wants to be a good scientist, one has to factor for personal bias and not let their personal political views affect the results if they are to be taken seriously by their peers. Koko - Please do not lecture me about peer-reviewed papers. I do these things almost on a daily basis at work. It is required of me and others in order to justify and support my findings in my line of work when we each write up our reports in our field of specialty (I've got 4 reports to complete over the next 4 to 6 weeks that will be anywhere from several pages to 20 pages long according to the size and level of details required) using studies and peer-reviewed articles as my references. I do on average anywhere from 2 to 4 reports a month depending on season and size of a project. But it's not only just peer-reviewed articles but any studies that are easily meritable in their own rights to begin with. It's about using your professional judgement when it comes to these things.

If these journals were to let in everyone whose views are clearly not knowledgeable, they'd lose credibility. Here's a quote from Dr. Evan Harris:

“We are bombarded daily with scientific (and pseudoscientific) claims from newspapers, internet, radio and television programmes. Though MPs consider themselves experienced sifters for the truth, it is often extremely difficult to know what to believe. Sense About Science’s guide to peer review will help MPs and their researchers in this regard because peer review, and an understanding of its role, is essential to distinguish good science from flawed science and mere conjecture.” BTW, it's not just science journals which needs to be peer reviewed.

Oh they will allow a different view from the majority of their professions but it has to be a sound argument to be accepted by a peer reviewed journal. I'd much rather get my information from trustworthy sources than from someone with an axe to grind. No axe to grind. You incorrectly mistake my using facts and supporting documents that show CO2 is not the primary driver on climate change. How come when I use peer reviewed articles or sources that points out vastly different findings about global warming do you and others call it "an axe to grind"? Though you didn't say it directly but you've said it rather explicitly clear.

My responses are in red. Besides, what is your background and qualifications that allow you the opportunity to offer me this lecture of yours? This whole argument is not about party or politics but by people who I feel are simply using politics as a reason and excuse to shape policies and laws on bogus and highly questionable findings. Obama is not interested in science. He's interested in seeing that a consensus is the result regardless if science is sound or not. Science is not about consensus. It's about letting it speak for itself rather than use it as club to instill fear and promote bullying. I have seen it happen here and in other forums.

 

[Daredevel7]

I have a question, kokonut. It's a genuine question. If there really was global warming, would anything be different from today? I don't know much about this but I feel that the effects of global warming and the natural progression of warming/cooling over eons would be indistinguishable. How does one factor out the natural aspect?

 

[Foxrac]

It's ironic about conservative said global warming isn't caused by humans but they aren't realize about CO2 greenhouse that has increased, that's caused by human in some case.

 

[Foxrac]

Well, gee. Obama went down to -11 on approval rating index. That didn't take long. Wonder how low he can go. Feels like the limbo dance.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

I'm not bother to check approval rating because of not full source.

 

[rockdrummer]

I have a question, kokonut. It's a genuine question. If there really was global warming, would anything be different from today? I don't know much about this but I feel that the effects of global warming and the natural progression of warming/cooling over eons would be indistinguishable. How does one factor out the natural aspect?

I am no expert but from what I understand the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling so you have a good question. I just think the subject if global warming is a bit off topic for this thread. I am not the thread police so it's not for me to say.

 

[deafskeptic]

My responses are in red. Besides, what is your background and qualifications that allow you the opportunity to offer me this lecture of yours? This whole argument is not about party or politics but by people who I feel are simply using politics as a reason and excuse to shape policies and laws on bogus and highly questionable findings. Obama is not interested in science. He's interested in seeing that a consensus is the result regardless if science is sound or not. Science is not about consensus. It's about letting it speak for itself rather than use it as club to instill fear and promote bullying. I have seen it happen here and in other forums.

While I have always believed that climate change shouldn't be about politics, I also wonder why your views appear to be political in nature. I will answer your other questions later today because right now I have other things to do which has nothing to do with your post.

 

[deafskeptic]

Koko -

well, that's one aspect. Here is something that you fail to realize. Surprising as it may seem we know very little on the integrity of a peer-review process. It's a given. Even from well respected journals. Look around. I've come across those things over the years so it does happen. There have been rejections of papers high in value and quality. There have been papers rejected solely on the basis of status quo (e.g. skeptic scientists' papers get rejected numerous times). A peer-review process is an honor based process.

While I agree that papers may get rejected, they tend to be accepted over time. I don't see this happening with the global warming skeptics though.

It's not perfect but it's the best we have right now. Your peers review your papers and they judge them on the merits of several things ranging from accuracy, integrity, honesty, unbiased writings to even proper formatting styles. A peer review process can also be "politics in action" in many cases as well rather than having it review on the merits of science itself instead.'

Again, I can't disagree with most of what you say. As for politics in action while it is possible it could happen, the simplest explanation suggests to me that it could be a case of sour grapes.

My 188-page thesis covered in the area of geophysics, hydrogeology, contaminant modeling, and geology was a 4 1/2 year effort, was peer reviewed by 5 professors and a few graduates, and I had to defend my work orally for almost 2 hours with questions and challenges from professors and students alike (it's protocol so it's not out of the ordinary here).

Given all the training that you had, I am surprised that you would cite some sources that are not taken seriously by the majority of scientists. As someone said in another thread, a university degree (even if it's in a sciencitally related field) does not necessarily turn people into skilled scientists.

Politics played a role at my university when one PhD student's dissertation paper (I believe it was like 400 page thick!) was rejected by one professor. It was known that this professor was biased against this PhD student for years. It story but it can and does get political in a peer-review process. You need to consider the other side of the fence by peer reviewers themselves when it comes to personal bias.

Since I do not know the whole story behind between the professor and the Ph.D professor, I can not comment on if it was due to politics or if it was for other reasons.

Besides, what is your background and qualifications that allow you the opportunity to offer me this lecture of yours? This whole argument is not about party or politics but by people who I feel are simply using politics as a reason and excuse to shape policies and laws on bogus and highly questionable findings. Obama is not interested in science. He's interested in seeing that a consensus is the result regardless if science is sound or not. Science is not about consensus. It's about letting it speak for itself rather than use it as club to instill fear and promote bullying. I have seen it happen here and in other forums.

I have never claimed to be a scientist - in fact I mentioned in an earlier post that my training is that of a fine artist and graphic designer. So now that I have said I am not a scientist nor do I have much training, does this automatically disqualify from a thread like this one? Not necessarily.

A more important question that pertains to the majority of the posters on this thread is how to tell if the science is sound or if it's questionable for those of us who are not trained in science. It likely pertains to Omaba as well.

I used to belong to a forum years ago which had a former scientist on it.

I learned in that forum:

1.) A theory/claim is wrong until show beyond reasonable doubt to be otherwise.
Keyword here is reasonable doubt.

2.) A theory that goes against current thinking must be accompanied by proportional evidence.

It's not so different from "innocent until proven guilty" rule in law. If it weren't for that rule, then everything would be true. UFOS, black helicopters and Santa Claus (etc) would all be true. Uh, this clearly won't work.

So then who to believe? According to another site a hallmark of a scientifically reliable site is that it represents consensus within the scientific community. Thus, scientific validity is ascertained not by evaluating a single web site, but by comparing information from several web sites. I think that pertains to papers and journals as well. This site is designed for students who do not have a great deal of scientific expertise.

These are the questions to be asked: What do the experts say? Who is doing the research?

According to the site that I have cited there are six catergories for evaluating scientific work:

Valid Most scientists agree with the thesis, data and conclusions drawn from the paper.
IPCC's reports and articles in Nature comes to mind.

Speculation: The majority of scientists would agree with the paper's thesis despite the lack of strong exerimental evidence. Worm holes in space time for example. They're predicted by well established theory, but have never been observed.

Uninformed: The author is not an expert in the field and is reporting only a part of a larger story. Things that get left out in the paper is often due to ignorance rather than malice. A lot of student papers are like that. Personally, I think this applies to the media as well.

Misrepresstation: The author often if not always present a correct statement. It's either taken out of context or not applied correctly. Quite often, the author is trying to mislead the reader by omitting or ignoring evidence not represented in the paper but it's well known in the field.
Unfortunately, a lot of the climate skeptics are like that.

Invalid: Most scientists would disagree with the paper's thesis.

So then for people to properly evaulate sites, there is a method for evaluating the validity of these sites which is fairly general: compare the statements made on these sites with those made on known, reputable sites. If there is a fair degree of scientific consensus, then the facts stated on each of these sites should be reflected on other sites.

 

[kokonut]

Koko - While I agree that papers may get rejected, they tend to be accepted over time. I don't see this happening with the global warming skeptics though. Koko - it has happened and it continues to happen. Remember this phrase, "The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this!" byAl Gore? Also, for the sake of you becoming more informed on these issues in regards to peer review journals and books read this piece of analysis about a peer-reviewed publication of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" book and how it created a backlash from pro global warming crowd:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/p...rrison_peer_review_politics_and_pluralism.pdf

Again, I can't disagree with most of what you say. As for politics in action while it is possible it could happen, the simplest explanation suggests to me that it could be a case of sour grapes. Koko - in some cases, politics heavily influence the decision.

Given all the training that you had, I am surprised that you would cite some sources that are not taken seriously by the majority of scientists. Koko - again, remember the phrase by Al Gore and his constituents that the debate is over. Consider the fact that there is a lucrative field to get fundings for global warming studies. - As someone said in another thread, a university degree (even if it's in a sciencitally related field) does not necessarily turn people into skilled scientists. Koko - sure unless they become a professional scientist or researcher in their field of specialty because of their knowledge, skill and application. It's no wonder I was accepted for a PhD study in Civil Engineering in the water resources and snow hydrology program along with a 3 year research assistantship deal (I've competed against several others for that) at Univ. of Maryland and work with a professor who graduated from MIT.

Since I do not know the whole story behind between the professor and the Ph.D professor, I can not comment on if it was due to politics or if it was for other reasons.

I have never claimed to be a scientist - in fact I mentioned in an earlier post that my training is that of a fine artist and graphic designer. So now that I have said I am not a scientist nor do I have much training, does this automatically disqualify from a thread like this one? Not necessarily. Koko - And what disqualify me, then? You have implied that a few times almost in that regard in so many words.

A more important question that pertains to the majority of the posters on this thread is how to tell if the science is sound or if it's questionable for those of us who are not trained in science. It likely pertains to Omaba as well.

I used to belong to a forum years ago which had a former scientist on it.

I learned in that forum:

1.) A theory/claim is wrong until show beyond reasonable doubt to be otherwise.
Keyword here is reasonable doubt.

2.) A theory that goes against current thinking must be accompanied by proportional evidence.

It's not so different from "innocent until proven guilty" rule in law. If it weren't for that rule, then everything would be true. UFOS, black helicopters and Santa Claus (etc) would all be true. Uh, this clearly won't work.

So then who to believe? According to another site a hallmark of a scientifically reliable site is that it represents consensus within the scientific community. Thus, scientific validity is ascertained not by evaluating a single web site, but by comparing information from several web sites. Koko - remember the "800 page" resource link I provided that does exactly that? Pretty ironic for you say that in light of what happened here when discussing scientific validity. I've provided more than enough, peer-review and all. I think that pertains to papers and journals as well. This site is designed for students who do not have a great deal of scientific expertise. Koko - yet the problem is that some scream for "Link!" or some other supporting document to your arguments. The second problem is trying to convey that very concept to those who are essentially science-illiterate. Either you do it or you don't and still be damned in either direction.

These are the questions to be asked: What do the experts say? Who is doing the research?

According to the site that I have cited there are six catergories for evaluating scientific work:

Valid Most scientists agree with the thesis, data and conclusions drawn from the paper.
IPCC's reports and articles in Nature comes to mind.

Speculation: The majority of scientists would agree with the paper's thesis despite the lack of strong exerimental evidence. Worm holes in space time for example. They're predicted by well established theory, but have never been observed.

Uninformed: The author is not an expert in the field and is reporting only a part of a larger story. Things that get left out in the paper is often due to ignorance rather than malice. A lot of student papers are like that. Personally, I think this applies to the media as well.

Misrepresstation: The author often if not always present a correct statement. It's either taken out of context or not applied correctly. Quite often, the author is trying to mislead the reader by omitting or ignoring evidence not represented in the paper but it's well known in the field.
Unfortunately, a lot of the climate skeptics are like that.

Invalid: Most scientists would disagree with the paper's thesis.

So then for people to properly evaulate sites, there is a method for evaluating the validity of these sites which is fairly general: compare the statements made on these sites with those made on known, reputable sites. If there is a fair degree of scientific consensus, then the facts stated on each of these sites should be reflected on other sites. koko - uh, no. Again, science is not about consensus but the pursuit of truth. A scientific consensus by itself is not a scientific argument. You're falling into that trap thinking like that. This is what separate from me as a scientist to you who is not a scientist. We're looking for the truth and the facts, not a show of hands. That's called politics. You are dabbling yourself in this field called "consensus science" which is all about politics. Don't even go there. It is wielded like a club to go after those who do not agree. Hence my recent link I gave to you about the The Skeptical Environmentalist. What is relevant in science are the reproducible results. Not consensus. The greatest scientists in history broke with the consensus. Be wary of consensus when it comes to science because politics lurks in the background.

My comments are in red.

 

[deafskeptic]

as happened and it continues to happen. Remember this phrase, "The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this!" byAl Gore? Also, for the sake of you becoming more informed on these issues in regards to peer review journals and books read this piece of analysis about a peer-reviewed publication of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" book and how it created a backlash from pro global warming crowd:

I read it years ago and I decided to find out if it was taken seriously. Turns out it isn't taken seriously. Since I don't have the training to judge the book, I chose to find out what others who are qualified to examine it thought of it.

As for Gore, he isn't the only one saying the debate is over. Here a link.

From what I can see, you're so blinded by idealogy you're unable to think objectively. You may have more scientific training than I do it's quite clear that your thinking is a bit questionable.

sure unless they become a professional scientist or researcher in their field of specialty because of their knowledge, skill and application. It's no wonder I was accepted for a PhD study in Civil Engineering in the water resources and snow hydrology program along with a 3 year research assistantship deal (I've competed against several others for that) at Univ. of Maryland and work with a professor who graduated from MIT.

Being knowledgeable in a certain fields doesn't mean that the said expert is knowledgeable in other related fields. I learned this this the hard way years ago.

If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, why the questionable links? Surely, you know better than that.

Oh I used to lurk on Infidels org and many of the posters there have a strong scientific background. The forums have been moved to this site.

I could tell if they knew their stuff by reading the forums and it is apparent to me that Flip knows her stuff. Although you appear to be better educated than the posters who comes to that forum to debunk evolution or to explain why creationism is a valid theory, your claims and links are questionable.

uh, no. Again, science is not about consensus but the pursuit of truth. A scientific consensus by itself is not a scientific argument. You're falling into that trap thinking like that. This is what separate from me as a scientist to you who is not a scientist. We're looking for the truth and the facts, not a show of hands. That's called politics. You are dabbling yourself in this field called "consensus science" which is all about politics. Don't even go there. It is wielded like a club to go after those who do not agree. Hence my recent link I gave to you about the The Skeptical Environmentalist. What is relevant in science are the reproducible results. Not consensus. The greatest scientists in history broke with the consensus. Be wary of consensus when it comes to science because politics lurks in the background.

Remember the second rule in science? A theory that goes against current thinking much be accompanied by proportional evidence. I don't see this happening with the climate change debunkers since they haven't come up with any good evidence yet. Of course, that could change but I'm not holding my breath.

Oh speaking of bogus science, the second warning sign is "claims of suppression". The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work Your comment reads like a variation of this warning; if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that the truth about climate change is being suppressed due to politics.

You've complained about being bullied into accepting climate change. I am under the impression that you're trying to bully those of us who disagree into accepting your claims.

 

[sallylou]

I believe the scientists who are *not* funded by entities who have an interest in denying global warming.

Most of the people here are not old enough to remember how the cigarette makers bought medical doctors to produce reports concluding that cigarettes were safe. It's like a expert witness--you can always find someone to say anything for the right price. I tend to be suspicious of scientists funded by companies.

Double-blind peer-reviewed studies are the scientific standard.

 

[kokonut]

Double-blind peer-reviewed studies are the scientific standard.

Double-blind peer review means that neither the author nor the reviewers know each others’ identities. It doesn't mean papers that underwent double-blind peer-reviews are better off credibility-wise than those with single peer review, open review, or post publication review.

 

[kokonut]

I read it years ago and I decided to find out if it was taken seriously. Turns out it isn't taken seriously. Since I don't have the training to judge the book, I chose to find out what others who are qualified to examine it thought of it.

As for Gore, he isn't the only one saying the debate is over. Koko - Gore is the leader in all this. What he says is gold. After all, he is the "Goracle." Here a link.

From what I can see, you're so blinded by idealogy you're unable to think objectively. You may have more scientific training than I do it's quite clear that your thinking is a bit questionable. Koko - this has nothing to do with idealogy, which I am assuming you are talking about political ideology, since science is about objectivity and looking at the facts not about politics which is what consensus is all about in this regard. Remember, I said science is not about consensus but about the truth. Consensus science is quite similar to ideology, something that you obviously missed, which is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. I'd say the matter is far from settle since the facts *do not* add up. Period. Isotope studies show this. So do sediment studies. Dendrology (tree rings). And so on. You just believe and not look into it. Me, however, I look into it and have been looking into it from a scientist perspective for the last 8 or 9 years when it first came to my attention. Their claims just simply do not add up. Until you do that and spend the time reading science journals, articles and studies on a regular basis then you might finally arrive at a different conclusion.

Being knowledgeable in a certain fields doesn't mean that the said expert is knowledgeable in other related fields. I learned this this the hard way years ago. Koko - there are overlaps when it comes to the field of science in terms of "expertness" and knowledge. There are lots of overlaps when it comes to Earth science, all inter-related and intertwined.

If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, why the questionable links? Surely, you know better than that. Koko - I provided a fair number of peer reviewed papers that support my arguments, opinions and knowledge. Are you questioning now all of sudden that peer reviewed papers should not be used in support of an argument or opinion?

Oh I used to lurk on Infidels org and many of the posters there have a strong scientific background. The forums have been moved to this site. Koko - so?

I could tell if they knew their stuff by reading the forums and it is apparent to me that Flip knows her stuff. Koko - not really as far as I can tell in some of the subject areas. Yet, her background remain nebulous and unknown in the field of science. Sorry to say. Although you appear to be better educated than the posters who comes to that forum to debunk evolution or to explain why creationism is a valid theory, your claims and links are questionable. Koko - again, I provided numerous peer reviewed science journal articles in support of my arguments, opinions, and knowledge. You have not. Nor Flip. When it came to providing an argument in favor of CO2 as the primary driver of global warming. I have provided other sources of links to exemplify and show the points I am trying to make. Let's not get too narrowly focused here.

Remember the second rule in science? A theory that goes against current thinking much be accompanied by proportional evidence. Koko - a theory remains a theory. It's not a proof nor a law. It doesn't mean everybody MUST ascribe to that theory, hence, the free and open debate to continue, study and learn some more. And not a consensus science. But when you mix politics with a favored theory then it becomes an increasingly skewed development that begs the question. I don't see this happening with the climate change debunkers since they haven't come up with any good evidence yet. Koko - oh, they have. In peer reviewed journal articles. Lots of 'em. Of course, that could change but I'm not holding my breath. Koko - hence, a part of the global warming screamers? Holding up repent signs, too, before it's too late?

Oh speaking of bogus science, the second warning sign is "claims of suppression". The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work Your comment reads like a variation of this warning; if I am reading this correctly, you are saying that the truth about climate change is being suppressed due to politics. Koko - look at one of the Congressional hearings when Democrats refused to allow skeptics to testify alongside with Gore earlier this year. Why? I'll wait for your answer. Isn't this about the free and open exchange of ideas, and, ahem, transparency? Or is this about a monopoly? More control? More avenues to tax people? Seeing that happened tells a story right there during a Congressional testimony.

You've complained about being bullied into accepting climate change. Koko - bullied? LOL. When has that ever happened? I am confident in what I know and studied. Complaining means you feel threatened. How can I feel threatened when I am already confident in what I know and the subject area? Bullied? That's made me smile. Probably a projection of yours? I am under the impression that you're trying to bully those of us who disagree into accepting your claims. Koko - sigh...you, too? This is exactly what happens when I put out links to peer review articles, graphs to point out the points I'm making, links to other sources and so on. The rest is up to them to take the iniative. I am passionate about what I believe and know but you call it bullying? You're not the first person to say this. First you say I complain about being bullied and then turn it around and say that I am bullying? Unreal. But let me give you one advice, let...it...go. Otherwise pull up a chair and provide me something that's compelling that's deserving a second look that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and that man has the ability to completely control the Earth's temperature.

My comments are in red.

 

[kokonut]

Well, gee. Obama went down to -11 on approval rating index. That didn't take long. Wonder how low he can go. Feels like the limbo dance.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

Now, back on topic. The Obamessiah.

Obama's approval numbers have dropped 42 points since January. Hmmm, everytime he opens his mouth, the number goes down.

Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

 

[netrox]

im scared.