AH...YES......peer review. The holiest of holies. With all the studies that have come up about peer review.

Peer review is what gives us this crap.

Medical peer review gives us 500k preventable deaths a year.

Legal peer review gives us politicians as judges.

Academic peer review mis-defines our problems. Academic peer review gives us bias and accuses standards for our problems.

We should only allow convicted felons on our juries. Right?

A peer review is a loophole for competence, accountability, exposure, then justice and correction.

 

AH...YES......peer review. The holiest of holies. With all the studies that have come up about peer review.

Peer review is what gives us this crap.

Medical peer review gives us 500k preventable deaths a year.

Legal peer review gives us politicians as judges.

Academic peer review mis-defines our problems. Academic peer review gives us bias and accuses standards for our problems.

We should only allow convicted felons on our juries. Right?

A peer review is a loophole for competence, accountability, exposure, then justice and correction.

You have a better way?
More talk show hosts perhaps?

 

How do you expect scientists to improve their research without doing research?

Your under the assumption that science must receive government funding to do research. I hold no such assumptions.

 

And prior to the "discovery" of the CO2 sinks, they just "assumed" the CO2 only increased.

The fact that the CO2 did not increase as fast as it should have led them to question why not? That's how they discovered them. If the answers just magically appeared you wouldn't need research.

 

Do you have any peer-reviewed research to support that claim.

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Peer review ... a process where an editor sends off a paper to two people the editor feels has knowledge in a topic. Talk about self-confirmation bias.

I suppose if everyone is "guessing" even a SWAG, about the numbers from the vast regions that are not monitored, that is firm scientific process proving that we have whatever the climate du jour policy most beneficial to garner research dollars.

The "skeptics" outnumber the "scientists". The "skeptics" vote and write letters to those who fund government operations. The "skeptics" would like better research and they haven't received that value. Cut them off and let them seek other funding. I'm sure they will get funding at any of the gofundme site.

 

The fact that the CO2 did not increase as fast as it should have led them to question why not? That's how they discovered them. If the answers just magically appeared you wouldn't need research.

Your telling me that it "just magically appeared" after their prediction didn't come true? Why didn't they consider the possibility of such a sink when they started this process? I'm sure they "adjusted" and found another reason for government research money. Maybe the companies, who were affected by the laws passed, should sue them for advocating bs policies based on incomplete scientific work.

Climate change is still a working hypothesis, as was global warming.

 

Your under the assumption that science must receive government funding to do research. I hold no such assumptions.

And the Russians would be the only people with ballistic missiles and satellites.

 

You have a better way?

Yeah, the opposing scientists put forth their predictions and then bet their funding on the outcome. The loser, loses their funding next fiscal year.

 

And the Russians would be the only people with ballistic missiles and satellites.

Unlike the constitutional mandated defense of the united states, climate change is not a national defense issue. Weather may be, but climate, 100 years post, is not. Weather in Greenland hit the English Channel two days post. Guess the citizens who hunted the Nazi weather stations and disabled them, played a bigger part than one realizes in D-day.

Yes, I know President Obama "declared" climate change as a national defense issue. Guess what rarely get's cut ... National Defense funding. Is there a correlation? Sure.

 

Your telling me that it "just magically appeared" after their prediction didn't come true? Why didn't they consider the possibility of such a sink when they started this process? I'm sure they "adjusted" and found another reason for government research money. Maybe the companies, who were affected by the laws passed, should sue them for advocating bs policies based on incomplete scientific work.

From their Research they knew how fast CO2 should increase. When it didn't they did more Research to find out why.

 

Do you have any peer-reviewed research to support that claim. Note that there are lots of research results in the literature that I would like to dispute but that is part of research. That's it why research gets published - to dispute results of peers, to do better than peers. It is the ultimate in free competition. If you think there is a deep conspiracy behind all science, then I can't help you with that.

The bias starts with the funding. There is a huge headwind facing grant writers for any research that isn't likely to support the party line. Funding decisions are not all made by impartial scientists, based on the merits of the proposed work. They're being made by bureaucrats with marching orders.

Then, there has been bias in the work itself. Mann et al have been the most notorious but there are others. Humans being humans, this probably happens on both sides of any issue but when one side is getting all the grant money, the bias is amplified.

Then, as @tcmtech has noted, there is a bias in the how the published finding are touted and used as political tools. There is an agenda to promote and this acts as a filter, a distortion of what the common man on the street is exposed to.

 

From their Research they knew how fast CO2 should increase.

So your telling me in all the data they had ... they didn't have any contrary data to oppose an increase? I find that incredulous.

The believers have a PR problem.

 

Unlike the constitutional mandated defense of the united states, climate change is not a national defense issue. Weather may be, but climate, 100 years post, is not. Weather in Greenland hit the English Channel two days post. Guess the citizens who hunted the Nazi weather stations and disabled them, played a bigger part than one realizes in D-day.

Yes, I know President Obama "declared" climate change as a national defense issue. Guess what rarely get's cut ... National Defense funding. Is there a correlation? Sure.

Then I'm sure you want to modify this statement to exclude national defense?

Your under the assumption that science must receive government funding to do research. I hold no such assumptions.

Who knows what might come out of climate research? I don't think anyone envisioned what would happen when the government funded Fairchild and Ti to work on ICs either.

 

So your telling me in all the data they had ... they didn't have any contrary data to oppose an increase? I find that incredulous.

The believers have a PR problem.

Did I say that?

 

Unlike the constitutional mandated defense of the united states, climate change is not a national defense issue. Weather may be, but climate, 100 years post, is not. Weather in Greenland hit the English Channel two days post. Guess the citizens who hunted the Nazi weather stations and disabled them, played a bigger part than one realizes in D-day.

Yes, I know President Obama "declared" climate change as a national defense issue. Guess what rarely get's cut ... National Defense funding. Is there a correlation? Sure.

Perhaps some better examples are vaccines.
Did you get a flu shot?

 

Did I say that?

Implied when you agreed with the exaggerated increase.

Who knows what might come out of climate research? I don't think anyone envisioned what would happen when the government funded Fairchild and Ti to work on ICs either.

Who gave Fairchild and TI grants? Was it the EPA? Was it NOAA? I'd bet it was defense.

The consensus among industry analysts seems to be that the government, through its direct
and indirect procurement policies, provided an early and
price-insensitive market that promoted movement along the learning
curve and allowed the industry to decrease prices as it learned how to make it's products.
---Government Support of the Semiconductor Industry: Diverse Approaches and Information flows
Daniel Holbrook
Department of History
Carnegie Mellon University

 

Who knows what might come out of climate research?

Well...
- We got Al Gore selling carbon credits. At least he's game fully employed, and as a recipient of government retirement, is he following the constitution as well with respect to foreign income?
- We got higher funding going to the UN to support their related projects. I'd cut the UN funding first.
- We had an email fiasco.
- We have a scientist suggesting to "fill in the blanks" both from data reporting stations and where no stations exist. Who knows which scientists followed that suggestion.
- We are claiming a global figure when the global measurements aren't global.
- We have a figure that is 50 times lower than the tolerance of the majority of the instruments being used.
- We have installations where external influences, other than the objects of the measurements, adding a bias to their recordings.

What we don't have is valid information being reported. I guess your right, no reason to be a skeptic. Wrong! Maybe some NEW scientists could get funding. Their reports have consequences. Incorrect reports need corrective action. Theft is one word that "could" be bantered about. It would be a capital offense if the funding was large enough.

I'd say fund them as long as Oppenheimer had funding to create the Atomic Bomb. If they don't have accurate predictions, by that time, de-fund them. Press releases also count. Predictions by the PR department operating under the color of the research counts like a scientist's predictions in funding determination.

 

Implied when you agreed with the exaggerated increase.




Who gave Fairchild and TI grants? Was it the EPA? Was it NOAA? I'd bet it was defense.

I said nothing about an exaggerated increase either.

From their Research they knew how fast CO2 should increase. When it didn't they did more Research to find out why.

Why are you trying to dispute how research works?

 

Well...
- We got Al Gore selling carbon credits. At least he's game fully employed, and as a recipient of government retirement, is he following the constitution as well with respect to foreign income?
- We got higher funding going to the UN to support their related projects. I'd cut the UN funding first.
- We had an email fiasco.
- We have a scientist suggesting to "fill in the blanks" both from data reporting stations and where no stations exist. Who knows which scientists followed that suggestion.
- We are claiming a global figure when the global measurements aren't global.
- We have a figure that is 50 times lower than the tolerance of the majority of the instruments being used.
- We have installations where external influences, other than the objects of the measurements, adding a bias to their recordings.

What we don't have is valid information being reported. I guess your right, no reason to be a skeptic. Wrong! Maybe some NEW scientists could get funding. Their reports have consequences. Incorrect reports need corrective action. Theft is one word that "could" be bantered about. It would be a capital offense if the funding was large enough.

I'd say fund them as long as Oppenheimer had funding to create the Atomic Bomb. If they don't have accurate predictions, by that time, de-fund them. Press releases also count. Predictions by the PR department operating under the color of the research counts like a scientist's predictions in funding determination.

There is no end to climate change debate, but good research is possible, and some only made possible with government funding. I guess it's my fault for using CO2 as an example of how research moves forward. I should have used something less controversial. My intent is not to debate climate change (again) but to support research which you seem to be against.

Your under the assumption that science must receive government funding to do research. I hold no such assumptions.

 

Your under the assumption that science must receive government funding to do research. I hold no such assumptions.

Same goes with peer review. It doesn't have to come from other credentialed or indoctrinated people directly in the system. Any researcher or scientist in general who thinks they found something big should never be afraid of putting their work out to full unrestricted public peer review.

As I have come to see it much of the more legitimate challenges the the AGW/CC believers sect have started with and were driven by the independant people outside of the main academic and credentialized circles.
Once enough of the scientifically educated Joe Publics in the world had seen what sort of crap was being passed off as proof they started doing their own reviews of the raw data which lead to the larger scale more academic types having a second look as well and that lead to the biggest suposed facts proving they were very far from factual or accurate in any way.

In a way that persistence of the average Joe public wanting full unrestricted access to the source data and procedures certain supposed scientist used was what lead to them being so highly questioned. Too often too much of what they were saying and basing their claims on showed they used less than properly and correct procedure and methods to get to their answers.

So when someone says,

AH...YES......peer review. The holiest of holies. With all the studies that have come up about peer review.

Peer review is what gives us this crap.

Medical peer review gives us 500k preventable deaths a year.

Legal peer review gives us politicians as judges.

Academic peer review mis-defines our problems. Academic peer review gives us bias and accuses standards for our problems.

We should only allow convicted felons on our juries. Right?

A peer review is a loophole for competence, accountability, exposure, then justice and correction.

it's not usually open public peer review but closed like minded peer review that the main source of the problem. Open public peer review is what gets people off their butt and fighting things that they see as being questionable or wrong that closed like minded peer review would just as soon durry as deep as they can to protect themselves as the AGW/CC data challenges have proven.