[rbartlett]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...n_id=&Issue_id


let the Ad hominen games begin!!

Cheers

Richard

[Steve.J.Davies]

There are many more than in that list. And as every scientist worthy of the name knows it only takes one to disprove a hypothesis.

(Amazing that Bellamy is being turned on by the Greenies - a conservationist of some repute who stood in front of chain saws to save a forest. But then that just shows he is a man of principle so how could he not come out against MM GW ?)

[njp]

Originally Posted by rbartlett

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...n_id=&Issue_id

All very tedious, and nothing we haven't seen before.

Senator Inhofe can declare what he wants (as he's been doing for years), but it won't make the actual peer-reviewed science go away!

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by rbartlett

let the Ad hominen games begin!!

Cheers

Richard

Good guess - but very short odds....

[toycollector]

Originally Posted by njp

All very tedious, and nothing we haven't seen before.

Senator Inhofe can declare what he wants (as he's been doing for years), but it won't make the actual peer-reviewed science go away!

Hi NJP.
can you tell me how much you will be making out of GW
this year?

[njp]

Originally Posted by toycollector

Hi NJP.
can you tell me how much you will be making out of GW
this year?

With pleasure. I've just added it up, and it comes to precisely £0.00 (based on extrapolating my GW earnings so far this year). However, I'm not proud, and if anyone in the global warming mafia wishes to start sponsoring my posts, I will be more than happy to take their money. As soon as that happy day arrives, you'll be the first to know, I promise.

Even without the GW silver, I'll continue to prefer good science to bad science and accurate information to misinformation, and will continue to post here accordingly.

[blearyeyes]

Njp, I notice you're a firm believer in peer reviewed papers, but I suppose you realise that many so-called peer reviewed papers are just rubber-stamped by fellow academics? That said, this probably means that some are just expensive toilet paper.

[njp]

Originally Posted by blearyeyes

Njp, I notice you're a firm believer in peer reviewed papers, but I suppose you realise that many so-called peer reviewed papers are just rubber-stamped by fellow academics? That said, this probably means that some are just expensive toilet paper.

And this makes non peer-reviewed papers published in obscure journals with an overt political agenda (or perhaps as a powerpoint presentation on the Internet) better, does it?

I expect you are about to hold us all spell-bound with some examples of the failure of the peer-review process. I already know a few, but I can't wait to see yours...

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by rbartlett

let the Ad hominen games begin!!

Originally Posted by njp

I expect you are about to hold us all spell-bound with some examples of the failure of the peer-review process. I already know a few, but I can't wait to see yours...

Sometimes.... I honestly can't tell if he's just taking the ****, or actually hoping to be taken seriously!

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Sometimes.... I honestly can't tell if he's just taking the ****, or actually hoping to be taken seriously!

The conclusions for either are telling

[njp]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Sometimes.... I honestly can't tell if he's just taking the ****, or actually hoping to be taken seriously!

Did you have some examples of the failure of the peer-review process you wanted to share with us?

Do you even know what it is?

[Fusewire]

Did you have some examples of the failure of the peer-review process you wanted to share with us?

Do you even know what it is?

Seeing as you have already admitted that this process is flawed and you know of examples where this process has failed in the past......

WHAT'S THE POINT.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

Seeing as you have already admitted that this process is flawed and you know of examples where this process has failed in the past......

WHAT'S THE POINT.

Because it's the best system we have, or that can be devised. I thought that was rather obvious.

Perhaps you think that because miscarriages of justice sometimes occur, we should not have any laws or any police or a judicial system to enforce them!

[Fusewire]

Because it's the best system we have, or that can be devised. I thought that was rather obvious.

Glad to see you have finnaly come to realise your cherished scientific 'alleged facts' that you berate us with so much are the product of a flawed process...... still, with a little blind faith they are still believable and 100% accurate and reliable I suppose.

Perhaps you think that because miscarriages of justice sometimes occur, we should not have any laws or any police or a judicial system to enforce them!

Now you're just being silly.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

Glad to see you have finnaly come to realise your cherished scientific 'alleged facts' that you berate us with so much are the product of a flawed process...... still, with a little blind faith they are still believable and 100% accurate and reliable I suppose.

You have a most peculiar view of science, presumably because you know so little about it.

How do you think it should be done?

[Steve.J.Davies]

Not getting any better for the alarmists..

[njp]

Not getting any better for the alarmists..

[Fusewire]

[QUOTE]You have a most peculiar view of science[QUOTE]

You don't know me and know very little about my view of science and have come to a conclusion based on a few posts of mine you have seen on the internet. Kind of reminds me of your approach to climate change science.

presumably because you know so little about it.

As usual as your argument crumbles and falls apart, you abandon all logic and resort to insulting those who have unraveled your assertions.

How do you think it should be done?

Although flawed it may well be the best system we have.... but as we know it can be flawed so it should be constantly questioned and tested and not just blindly accepted.

And those that question such things such not be ridiculed.... if they question it and are proved wrong then it makes the science stronger as it has stood up to the test, if they are proved right it also makes the science stronger as it has corrected and error.

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by njp

Not getting any better for the alarmists..

Well done n, either is telling.
And not a trace of Ad Hominem in my post you linked to - no conclusions drawn merely an observation (to use 'sciencey' language).

[njp]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

You don't know me and know very little about my view of science and have come to a conclusion based on a few posts of mine you have seen on the internet.

You claimed that science that has undergone peer-review was "the result of a flawed process".

So that is either a statement that is so trite as to be useless (no process is perfect, after all) or else a strong statement that the whole scientific endeavour is pointless and we might as well ignore it. Which did you mean?

Although flawed it may well be the best system we have.... but as we know it can be flawed so it should be constantly questioned and tested and not just blindly accepted.

That's exactly what happens. Nobody makes the claim that science is correct simply because it has been peer-reviewed. That would be ridiculous. It's about quality control - weeding out things that are already known to be incorrect, challenging the methodological approach and so on. And once a paper has been published, it can then be refuted or further confirmed by other researchers. As I tire of saying, the IPCC is essentially a literature survey of the published science.

And those that question such things such not be ridiculed.... if they question it and are proved wrong then it makes the science stronger as it has stood up to the test, if they are proved right it also makes the science stronger as it has corrected and error.

Ridicule is reserved for those who persist in making claims, usually outside the peer-reviewed scientific journals, that have already been shown to be false or are highly speculative and lack supporting data, but are nevertheless presented as though they were true. Other than that, your point is correct!

[Steve.J.Davies]

"As I tire of saying, the IPCC is essentially a literature survey of the published science."

It was a selective one - self selecting at that. Yet another fundamental flaw in it that invalidates it as science. Political yes, scientific no.

[njp]

Just saying that does not make it so, Steve.

[Fusewire]

You claimed that science that has undergone peer-review was "the result of a flawed process".

Yes

So that is either a statement that is so trite as to be useless (no process is perfect, after all)

No, it just means that need to acknowledge the fact that just because something has been peer reviewed that there is still a possibility that it could be wrong. (Something that you have already agreed can happen. ) Hence it is healthy to question things rather than just accepting them.

or else a strong statement that the whole scientific endeavour is pointless and we might as well ignore it.

No it certainly is not and is a ridiculous suggestion....why are you doing this ?

Nobody makes the claim that science is correct simply because it has been peer-reviewed. That would be ridiculous.

I'm glad you agree , I feel we are really making progress now, I made the point because you have done just this in the past in various different threads, now that you have seen the light it can only make you a better scientist.

Other than that, your point is correct!

Thankyou

[Steve.J.Davies]

Originally Posted by njp

Just saying that does not make it so, Steve.

Oh n, take the blinkers off. the IPCC report has been demolished - the selection of papers (and the omission of papers and data and methods), the use of unpublished papers, the self selection of the whole process have been well analyzed, documented and published. Not on Mann's jolly hockey stick realclimate site of course

[njp]

Originally Posted by Fusewire

I'm glad you agree, I feel we are really making progress now, I made the point because you have done just this in the past in various different threads, now that you have seen the light it can only make you a better scientist.

Give me a link to a post where I have claimed that something is correct merely because it has been peer-reviewed.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Steve.J.Davies

Oh n, take the blinkers off. the IPCC report has been demolished - the selection of papers (and the omission of papers and data and methods), the use of unpublished papers, the self selection of the whole process have been well analyzed, documented and published. Not on Mann's jolly hockey stick realclimate site of course

Nor on any other credible site, because the claim is nonsense!