RE: Climate Change

RE: Climate Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 My point is that as soon as the topic shifts to something they know they won't entirely loose at, they swarm like a pack of hungry sharks. It's just an interesting observation is all, makes one think that they know they don't have a winning argument in the science department but they just won't admit it. your argument concerning "the science" has been answered over, and over, and over and over, and over again. that is why I made the comparison to the terminator---it (referring to your absolutely mind-boggling inability to either see, or accept that) just wont die. as to the other material that you see as "shifting" the topic---nothing exists in isolation. its all a part, and a very meaningful part at that, of the conversation. and consider an alternative reading to your present position of the reason for the "shifting"---people can only beat their head against the wall so often before they want to stop. Ya because you know, linking to conservative websites and blogs is "answering", sure. The only thing you've demonstrated is how you think it's a political issue, not a scientific one. Word of advice: jump onto Google scholar or some other research based search engine and find some honest to god research, because the stuff you've supplied is so biased it's not even funny.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:16:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Maybe he thinks that if 2 scientists say something that is must be true? If 5 view it and 3 agree and 2 disagree then the 3 must be true. I don't know. Just my impression. Noooooooo. If a scientist says something and it agrees with his worldview than it must be true. ...except the links he's provided were either 1) provided by scientists and their findings were cherry picked and ignored the totality of what the research was trying to do, and 2) were not provided by scientists at all but were from bloggers or conservative websites. Ya, hard to agree with views like that when they're so narrow minded[8\|]

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:22:23 AM)
Ahhhhhhhhh so being a conservative is a disqualifier because from my take on what you are saying is that conservatives are disqualified from science

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:24:34 AM)
Hardly, conservative websites have a tendency to ignore the science altogether. Plus even if it was a liberal site with no links to the source material they're talking about is equally as bad of a source. If you can't reference it in a scientific peer reviewed paper, then your source, whether liberal or conservative, isn't legitimate.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:32:52 AM)
Tk How come we can't see all these peer reviewd papers you keep talking about. I did a search and can't find anything that cites them directly. A journal article isn't one. A news paper article isn't one. Where do they hide them? Specifically I'd like to see a list of every one of them.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:33:59 AM)
I linked to several a couple pages ago, what in particular would you like me to provide? And Google scholar is often a great way to find articles, although some of them you have to pay for to read. I've got special privalleges because I'm working through a university and I'm allowed to see most research articles. But I can summarize the information if you run into trouble.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:34:59 AM)
Apparently you didn't understand the definition of every one. It is an all inclusive concept.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:36:54 AM)
Lol, your statement is like demanding me to run, but as soon as I run a mile you say I should keep running around the world because your statement was all inclusive. I don't think you could have tried to look up everything in the time you responded to me.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:41:19 AM)
thread has been going for a couple of days now. I just asked for a list. That would be like one or two links maybe. You can't trust the journals, communities, etc. But where is the link? That is the only way to include both the pro and con of the sum of all climate knowledge.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:44:14 AM)
A link on what exactly? No study has ever been done that has looked at ALL of the aspects related the climate change. I'm mean the IPCC reports are pretty close, but I know a lot of cons refute them out of spite. Should I link to that?

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:44:15 AM)
It's like having a registry of scientific consciousness.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:45:32 AM)
They have to register their knowledge and how they obtained it someplace don't they?

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:51:10 AM)
Yes they're called scientific journals, and the best ones are renowned for the scientific integrity.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:53:54 AM)
No those aren't registers. They are articles. They don't contain the sum of everything. Japanese, Russian, American, WHO, etc knowledge complete with everything needed to determine exactly how they achieved the result, 100% of all data including contradictory data, etc. The journals don't contain near that much information.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 5:55:52 AM)
Aren't the articles in scientific journals slanted in a particular manner to meet their need? I say yes

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:23:21 AM)
Lol, yes they're slanted because readers who want to read about nature will choose a nature journal, and if they want to read research on physics they read a physics journal. Where do you think research is submitted? Honestly? And there are many registries, but they act more as a search engine because they archive thousands to millions of research over the last 100 years or so which include topics like climate change but are not simply limited to them. Google scholar is one, Primo is another, and there's aparently several more I've never used but it isn't hard to find them. There's two types of science: those conducted independently or by a government body. Independent research is typically published in a journal, which requires the paper to undergo extensive peer review to ensure that it's methods make sense and there is no bias in the research. They seek to follow the logic, and if a reviewer finds a paper isn't following the logic they won't be allowed to continue into the next level of peer review. The time and energy it takes to get a piece of research published is extensive and very difficult, and if the science isn't sound then it won't get published. Simple as that.

thishereboi -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 My point is that as soon as the topic shifts to something they know they won't entirely loose at, they swarm like a pack of hungry sharks. It's just an interesting observation is all, makes one think that they know they don't have a winning argument in the science department but they just won't admit it. your argument concerning "the science" has been answered over, and over, and over and over, and over again. that is why I made the comparison to the terminator---it (referring to your absolutely mind-boggling inability to either see, or accept that) just wont die. as to the other material that you see as "shifting" the topic---nothing exists in isolation. its all a part, and a very meaningful part at that, of the conversation. and consider an alternative reading to your present position of the reason for the "shifting"---people can only beat their head against the wall so often before they want to stop. Ya because you know, linking to conservative websites and blogs is "answering", sure. The only thing you've demonstrated is how you think it's a political issue, not a scientific one. Word of advice: jump onto Google scholar or some other research based search engine and find some honest to god research, because the stuff you've supplied is so biased it's not even funny. What's funny is you claiming someone else is making this into a political issue while you whine and deny any website that leans to the right. And if you don't believe me just ask him.... quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Hardly, conservative websites have a tendency to ignore the science altogether. Plus even if it was a liberal site with no links to the source material they're talking about is equally as bad of a source. If you can't reference it in a scientific peer reviewed paper, then your source, whether liberal or conservative, isn't legitimate. Perhaps if you took the blinkers off and stopped trying to see every thing as left vs right you might be able to have an intelligent conversation but I am not holding my breath.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:30:27 AM)
so what you are saying is that if the guy initially reading the article doesn't like what he sees he can keep it from being published. Therefore, that invalidates the research that was done because it wasn't agreed to by the guy reading to it. Talk about a lot of money being wasted on research. Just have the guy develop the conclusion and go from there. Oh wait that isn't scientific is it. You can't prove a conclusion until you get the data. Appears the articles you have are slanted toward whatever one guy says is right.

Tkman117 -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:33:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 My point is that as soon as the topic shifts to something they know they won't entirely loose at, they swarm like a pack of hungry sharks. It's just an interesting observation is all, makes one think that they know they don't have a winning argument in the science department but they just won't admit it. your argument concerning "the science" has been answered over, and over, and over and over, and over again. that is why I made the comparison to the terminator---it (referring to your absolutely mind-boggling inability to either see, or accept that) just wont die. as to the other material that you see as "shifting" the topic---nothing exists in isolation. its all a part, and a very meaningful part at that, of the conversation. and consider an alternative reading to your present position of the reason for the "shifting"---people can only beat their head against the wall so often before they want to stop. Ya because you know, linking to conservative websites and blogs is "answering", sure. The only thing you've demonstrated is how you think it's a political issue, not a scientific one. Word of advice: jump onto Google scholar or some other research based search engine and find some honest to god research, because the stuff you've supplied is so biased it's not even funny. What's funny is you claiming someone else is making this into a political issue while you whine and deny any website that leans to the right. And if you don't believe me just ask him.... quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Hardly, conservative websites have a tendency to ignore the science altogether. Plus even if it was a liberal site with no links to the source material they're talking about is equally as bad of a source. If you can't reference it in a scientific peer reviewed paper, then your source, whether liberal or conservative, isn't legitimate. Perhaps if you took the blinkers off and stopped trying to see every thing as left vs right you might be able to have an intelligent conversation but I am not holding my breath. It's calling a spade a spade, if people like you can't link to the original research itself, then what point is there discussing it? As we've both said before, you can find anything that'll support your opinion on the Internet, which is why I set my standards rather high. I don't go off what I read on a website, I go off what I read in the original scientific research who's authors did the actual science and underwent extensive peer review. If you got a problem with that then clearly you have no scientific basis to back up your arguments, because in the end everything we understand as fact or learn in school underwent extensive scrutiny to determine how valid it is, and climate change is included in that.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/20/2015 6:35:51 AM)
Seems you set your standards on what one guy in a publishing house says. At least to me

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625