RE: Who is ready for some global warming?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Who is ready for some global warming?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Who is ready for some global warming?

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 12 [13]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 1/22/2017 6:52:29 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If you can't raise a valid issue with the methodology or the analysis, pointing to the source of the funding is just a cheap attempt to divert attention away from the rabbit.

Roflmfao
Would that be like all of those "scientific" papers produced by the tobacco companies prooving that tobacco is good for you?

So it's your position that there were there no flaws in their methodology or analysis?

That would rather seem to be your position.

Really? Well then, it would rather seem that you're an idiot.

These [tobacco industry] studies are often open to criticism on methodological grounds: use of selective arguments and literature, inconsistency in the inclusion or omission of potentially biasing factors, playing with statistical inference rather than considering overall plausibility and weight of evidence, and drawing conclusions that are unwarranted by the evidence. Such concerns may not prevent these studies from being published in international journals, where the peer review process has failed to address their methodological weaknesses. ~Source

Peer review failures can happen in climate research too. But the fact remains that they weren't bad studies because the tobacco industry funded them, they were bad studies because they employed flawed methodologies and analyses.

K.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 241

RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 1/22/2017 7:42:44 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

My point, which you seem to both agree and disagree with, is that the source of a paper is one aspect to guide us as to it's validity, Another source might include previous attempts at subtrafuge.

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 242

RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 1/22/2017 8:52:54 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

My point, which you seem to both agree and disagree with, is that the source of a paper is one aspect to guide us as to it's validity, Another source might include previous attempts at subtrafuge.

I haven't said anything about the source of a paper, whether it be a university or whatever else. The subject I was addressing was the source of its funding. But we can pass that quibble by, because neither has anything to do with its validity as a scientific study.

Granted, where either the source of a paper or the source of its funding has acquired a bad history there would be cause to review it with a fine-toothed comb. But if its methodology and analyses are found to be beyond cavil, then it's a solid study no matter who ran it or funded it; and if a study is flawed, then it's flawed no matter who ran it or funded it.

K.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 243

RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 1/22/2017 9:48:16 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

My point, which you seem to both agree and disagree with, is that the source of a paper is one aspect to guide us as to it's validity, Another source might include previous attempts at subtrafuge.

I haven't said anything about the source of a paper, whether it be a university or whatever else. The subject I was addressing was the source of its funding. But we can pass that quibble by, because neither has anything to do with its validity as a scientific study.

That is an opinion refuted by fact as pointed out the above reference to the tobacco companies and the "science" they presented. You are arguing a what if as opposed to what is.
To suggest that the source of a paper and the source of funding are somehow differernt is to strech the meaning of words to to the point of meaninglessness.

Granted, where either the source of a paper or the source of its funding has acquired a bad history there would be cause to review it with a fine-toothed comb. But if its methodology and analyses are found to be beyond cavil, then it's a solid study no matter who ran it or funded it; and if a study is flawed, then it's flawed no matter who ran it or funded it.

The facts remain that the methodology was flawed as a criteria of the study.

Peer review failures can happen in climate research too.

Yet you nor anyone else has produced any.

But the fact remains that they weren't bad studies because the tobacco industry funded them, they were bad studies because they employed flawed methodologies and analyses.

Which your cite points out were at the behist of the the tobacco companies who funded the study.

So once again it apears to me that you are both agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 1/22/2017 9:51:07 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 244

RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 1/22/2017 10:02:31 AM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

You should have quit while it seemed you were only an idiot.

K.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 245

RE: Who is ready for some global warming? - 1/29/2017 6:29:11 AM

BoscoX