NOAA: Hurricane Drought Hits Record 118 Months

[rdale]

Rdale, Here's what I'm going to do for you. I am going to post several articles

Bzzt. Articles <> Peer Reviewed Research. I can write an article on DailyCaller RIGHT NOW that says tornadoes are caused by the position of the stars...

Ironic that some "smart" people with college degrees are completely incapable of seeing past their own biases to question, study and come up with results.

I think you missed the irony While I'm smart and hold degrees, it took a while for me to look past my own bias. I never agreed with climate change because it didn't make sense to me. I heard the politicians talk and assumed that if Al Gore was for it - I should be against it.

Then I did the research. I talked to people that are in school and devoted their lives to this. I realized: These are smart kids (smarter than me in this arena.) I've never taken a climate change course in my life - let alone done research. I'm a FOOL for thinking I know more about this topic than they do...

Then I read a book that has NOTHING do to with the science. It looks at all the investments oil companies are making in areas with tens of feet of impenetratable ice. Why are they doing that? You guess

The Steps 1-9 part of your post has nothing do with how the science world works.

 

[ScottCurry]

Since Dave is making his conclusions based upon articles, I would like to be fair to everyone reading this by posting some articles that say the exact opposite. Want to prove any viewpoint? Google your point of view, and you will find dozens of articles proving you right.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/10/climate-denial-food-chain-conservative-media-ru/202469
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr..._james_delingpole_tells_it_like_it_isn_t.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/28/434196/fakegate-heartland-scientist-debunked/

 

[Dave Ragozzine]

Bzzt. Articles <> Peer Reviewed Research. I can write an article on DailyCaller RIGHT NOW that says tornadoes are caused by the position of the stars...



I think you missed the irony While I'm smart and hold degrees, it took a while for me to look past my own bias. I never agreed with climate change because it didn't make sense to me. I heard the politicians talk and assumed that if Al Gore was for it - I should be against it.

Then I did the research. I talked to people that are in school and devoted their lives to this. I realized: These are smart kids (smarter than me in this arena.) I've never taken a climate change course in my life - let alone done research. I'm a FOOL for thinking I know more about this topic than they do...

Then I read a book that has NOTHING do to with the science. It looks at all the investments oil companies are making in areas with tens of feet of impenetratable ice. Why are they doing that? You guess

The Steps 1-9 part of your post has nothing do with how the science world works.

Rdale, You're so closed minded it's almost scary. Read the articles instead of blatantly ignoring facts and information from credible sources. Here's why me, nor anyone with the ability to think freely cares about "peer review." http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dozens-scientific-papers-withdrawn-probably-more-come
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/?hpid=z4

You have also cited nothing to validate your position or to invalidate mine. A truly ignorant person dismisses things without looking into them. Bzzt, you haven't posted anything other than proof that you're not very smart.

Scott, I'm making my conclusions based on facts. There is also nothing wrong with news articles unless you are someone who is afraid of things that go against whatever lies you have bought into. At least I cited non-Leftist websites, you bring Slate and ThinkProgress; two obvious, blatant and notorious Leftist websites. You might as well site Karl Marx while you're at it.

 

[John Farley]

Here's why me, nor anyone with the ability to think freely cares about "peer review." http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dozens-scientific-papers-withdrawn-probably-more-come
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/?hpid=z4

If you are going to throw out the whole peer review system based on this incident, YOU are the one with the closed mind. I have been a peer reviewer for dozens if not a hundred or more papers submitted to social scientific journals. Nearly all active researchers in the natural and social sciences have done the same. It takes a lot of effort to read and evaluate the soundness of these papers. I have not doubt that every review I ever wrote was read and seriously considered by the editor. Was my advice always followed? Of course not - that's why we have multiple reviewers. But it was always considered.

Yes, I am sure fraud occurs, as it does in ANY enterprise, but to advocate throwing out the whole peer review system that has generally served science well is asinine. By showing your ignorance about the peer review system, YOU are the one that is dismissing things without looking into them.

You have also cited nothing to validate your position or to invalidate mine. A truly ignorant person dismisses things without looking into them. Bzzt, you haven't posted anything other than proof that you're not very smart.

Scott, I'm making my conclusions based on facts. There is also nothing wrong with news articles unless you are someone who is afraid of things that go against whatever lies you have bought into. At least I cited non-Leftist websites, you bring Slate and ThinkProgress; two obvious, blatant and notorious Leftist websites. You might as well site Karl Marx while you're at it.

LOL! You actually say something like this after quoting Breitbart and the Daily Caller as if they were unbiased websites!

 

[rdale]

Rdale, You're so closed minded it's almost scary. Read the articles instead of blatantly ignoring facts and information from credible sources.

I just wanted to reflect on this... I, who had a preconceived notion against global warming, read research articles, talked to people in the research (who have not tapped into the millions of dollars you say Obama has ready to pass out), and seen the facts, and changed my mind.

Hint: That is not the definition of a closed mind.

When you say "articles" I assume you mean newspaper reports. If I read newspaper reports on tornado formation, I would think that a great wall across Kansas would eliminate tornadoes. When you can explain why reading "articles" on a science topic is not a good way to discuss science - we can chat again

 

[rdale]

Since you pointed out the issues with peer review (it's not a perfect process!) it's interesting that this paper just came out.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

They looked at some of the main papers used to say that climate change is NOT human-caused, and (surprisingly?) were unable to replicate their results. So you're right - falsified data can make it into the system. But it's easily weeded out.

 

[Dave Ragozzine]

Since you pointed out the issues with peer review (it's not a perfect process!)QUOTE]

.... So you essentially demand that I produce peer reviewed studies, but then you state that it's not a perfect process? LOL! So peer review is no different than an article from a leading newspaper that cites credible and knowledgeable people. You proved my point again Dale. I hope you chase tornadoes in an electric car. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, would you?

 

[rdale]

peer review is no different than an article from a leading newspaper

Sigh... I _hope_ you are just trolling and don't actually believe that. Seriously? You think a newspaper article has the same merit in a science discussion that a peer-reviewed science article does?

I hope you chase tornadoes in an electric car

Wow, I don't want you to take this personally but if you think that science is based on what type of car I drive, it's apparent you didn't listen to your high school teacher (or you just had a bad one.) There is no connection between the type of car a scientist drives and science facts. Do you reject Markowski's theory on rear flank downdraft because he uses Netflix and you prefer RedBox? That makes as much sense as your comparison

 

[Todd Lemery]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[rdale]

Good find Todd... I get your point that the basis for "non-human caused" global warming is extremely weak. I'm afraid that Dave is so caught up in the political side of this (sad that some let politics sway their opinions of science) that he's too far out to ever consider using facts for his basis.

 

[rdale]

But the next time he chases - I bet he uses the same sort of science to help in his predictions. Funny stuff - science is extremely valuable when it means you take an aspirin to reduce your headache, and it enables you to forecast storm formation days in advance, but when science goes against the rants of your favorite Fox News commentator then it's stupid