GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Bad couple of days for Global Warming alarmists

Bill8 · 07-29-2011, 02:15 AM

so, give me your summary of what you think these things say. Then I'll give you mine, and we can take a look at the information and see wether we can support our summaries.

I did not "shoot down" your original article post, I gave you a counterargument to it from a usually more reliable source on science news than Yahoo and Forbes.

It's going to take the science community at least a year to asses this information and Spencer's processing of the satelite measurements and instrument readings.

You have to understand that Spencers article was not posted in the usual peer review journals, it was posted in an open access online journal, not in a peer-reviewed climate science journal in which it would be expected to be checked before publishing.

What this means is simply this - that article has not yet been subjected to ANY peer review, and it is only a few days old. Nobody has had a chance to look at the numbers and check the hypothesis and conclusions.

If some single lone scientist published a paper in a non peer reviewed open access online journal saying they had numbers proving that the earth would warm 10 degrees in the next decade, you would be justifiably suspicious. But because this guy is saying something that MIGHT agree with your politics, you are ready to jump on it, just like Forbes, a magazine of the corporatists, the same ones who got that $16 trillion, wants you to.

You need to be more suspicious, and you need to be more suspicious of ALL media, not just the ones you think for the moment aupport your beliefs.

So, we will see what the conclusions are when the scientists have had teh chance to look at the information. That will take months at least. Frankly, it's going to have to be re-researched, because publishing in an open access online journal is a bit like a corporation publishing it's shareholder report on say, motleyfool.

It's not how peer review works.

You in particular should be especially suspicious of Forbes. You know what the corporatists are capable of when it comes to manipulating informationm and the media.

07-29-2011, 02:15 AM
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	so, give me your summary of what you think these things say. Then I'll give you mine, and we can take a look at the information and see wether we can support our summaries. I did not "shoot down" your original article post, I gave you a counterargument to it from a usually more reliable source on science news than Yahoo and Forbes. It's going to take the science community at least a year to asses this information and Spencer's processing of the satelite measurements and instrument readings. You have to understand that Spencers article was not posted in the usual peer review journals, it was posted in an open access online journal, not in a peer-reviewed climate science journal in which it would be expected to be checked before publishing. What this means is simply this - that article has not yet been subjected to ANY peer review, and it is only a few days old. Nobody has had a chance to look at the numbers and check the hypothesis and conclusions. If some single lone scientist published a paper in a non peer reviewed open access online journal saying they had numbers proving that the earth would warm 10 degrees in the next decade, you would be justifiably suspicious. But because this guy is saying something that MIGHT agree with your politics, you are ready to jump on it, just like Forbes, a magazine of the corporatists, the same ones who got that $16 trillion, wants you to. You need to be more suspicious, and you need to be more suspicious of ALL media, not just the ones you think for the moment aupport your beliefs. So, we will see what the conclusions are when the scientists have had teh chance to look at the information. That will take months at least. Frankly, it's going to have to be re-researched, because publishing in an open access online journal is a bit like a corporation publishing it's shareholder report on say, motleyfool. It's not how peer review works. You in particular should be especially suspicious of Forbes. You know what the corporatists are capable of when it comes to manipulating informationm and the media. Last edited by Bill8; 07-29-2011 at 02:30 AM..