Discussion:
Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers
(too old to reply)
Blue
2018-07-08 13:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
---------------


Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers



Replication is something scientists should be thinking
about before they write the paper, says Ritu Dhand,
the editorial director at Nature.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778




It's bad enough when climate muggers make up their playdo nubbers.

But it's worse when their destroy what nubbers they've got so
that no one can replicate them.


And even when the resulting models from, plado nubbers are put
out their and falsified they'll point to maybe one and say see,
even if they just made it up. As for the other 1,000 from
planted fire to planet ice, you're just supposed to forget about.
And the little self made wizard get their playdo out again.

These mini harry potters then make up some more playdo nubbers
and expect the sky to do just as they command, after saying
abracadabra grant money.


Then along come low brow lobotomy types, sit on their high chair
and claim, well scientists say so, why can't you accept that?
But these knuckle dragging parroting morons haven't an ounce clue
of what they're saying, they're just repeating the mantra, from above,
that has been sold them so often. They're deaf blind dumb
to anything else


Meanwhile, if climate mongers weren't destroying the field fast enough.
The whole of science is collapsing around their ears as
no one want to go through the unexciting, undramatic world of boring
replication science. They all want to put on their wizard hats
and cover themselves in tinsel town.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-07-08 13:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue
---------------
Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers
Replication is something scientists should be thinking
about before they write the paper, says Ritu Dhand,
the editorial director at Nature.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39054778
It's bad enough when climate muggers make up their playdo nubbers.
But it's worse when their destroy what nubbers they've got so
that no one can replicate them.
And even when the resulting models from, plado nubbers are put
out their and falsified they'll point to maybe one and say see,
even if they just made it up. As for the other 1,000 from
planted fire to planet ice, you're just supposed to forget about.
And the little self made wizard get their playdo out again.
These mini harry potters then make up some more playdo nubbers
and expect the sky to do just as they command, after saying
abracadabra grant money.
Then along come low brow lobotomy types, sit on their high chair
and claim, well scientists say so, why can't you accept that?
But these knuckle dragging parroting morons haven't an ounce clue
of what they're saying, they're just repeating the mantra, from above,
that has been sold them so often. They're deaf blind dumb
to anything else
Meanwhile, if climate mongers weren't destroying the field fast enough.
The whole of science is collapsing around their ears as
no one want to go through the unexciting, undramatic world of boring
replication science. They all want to put on their wizard hats
and cover themselves in tinsel town.
what kind of dumb ass whiner wrote that crap, i bet that person uses the best science possible to manage his/investments including investing in the newest science WHAT A DUMB ASS!
k***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 13:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A couple yrs ago Berkely did an intensive study about GHGs.

They could find no evidence. So their conclusion was that they couldn't replicate atmospheric conditions in the 'aquarium'. Their words. Leaving the possibility that the property is in atmospheric conditions which they could not replicate

In the meantime, direct science CAN disprove this concept.
The definition of a GHG is that it is reactive to infrared wheras non-GHGs are not.

The O2 and N2 are supposedly so transparent that human impact of what can be no more than several parts per 100,000,000, is a significant driver of climate.

There are many ways to prove this wrong. Especially at temperatures approaching 1000K, which is still below the melting point of copper.

Also the top of the stratosphere rexieves only about 950Wm-2.

About 400Wm-2 in the infrared is absorbed in the stratosphere by the O2 and N2 and causes rhe thermal inversion.

There is nn water vapor in the stratosphere and very little co2.

Gases absorb uniformly the frequencies of the infrared from about 1-2um to the microwaves. This is indicated by the common value of R for all gases. Spectral characteristics or dark bands do not affect overal absorptive or emmisive powers.

This is indeed the preliminary point of thermodynamics and the work of Stefan, Wein, Boltzman, Planck and the culmination and defintion of electro-magnetic energy by Einstein.
k***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 14:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The scientific method, is to document a clear methodology and results which can then be replicated by others to confirm any conclusions.

Climatologists insist upon their right to confidentiality and that their work details they shouldn't have to share being all their hard work which they have exclusive rights to.

They have even decided that the word 'proof' has no real value. How can you ever 'prove' something? I've even heard them say that the concept of proof is something for law or the courts, not applicable to their 'science'.
k***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 14:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...Also the top of the stratosphere rexieves only about 950Wm-2.

My error. I meant top of troposphere or bottom of stratosphere
k***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 14:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
The O2 and N2 are supposedly so transparent that human impact of what can be no more than several parts per 100,000,000, is a significant driver of climate. ..

I meant several parts per 100,000,000 of methane.

About 1500 pars per billion.
Percentage of methane from anthropogenic sources,
Percentage of methane from anthropogenic sources that can be controlled by illegilizing cows and rice and landfills and sewage treatment.

Good thing greenies can't do math. They can only make wild and unsupported assertions without actually evaluating the reality of what they say.

Or they would all go stark raving mad, running through the streets tearing their hair out in severe panic and hysteria.
k***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 17:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
They could find no evidence. So their conclusion was that they couldn't replicate atmospheric conditions in the 'aquarium'. Their words. Leaving the possibility that the property is in atmosp

...
Only problem with this, is the ice core record.

Whether or not these show accurate quantites of co2, it shows relative changes in co2 and temperature

The co2 lags temperature by about 1000 yrs.
The temperature rises on its own for some other reason.
After about 900-1000 yrs or so, co2 begins to rise.
Then when temperature begins to fall, co2 continues to rise for about 1000 yrs. Clearly here, co2 is NOT DRIVING TEMPERATURES.

Then at points, the temperature changes from falling to rising and the co2 lags this by about 1000yrs.

Analysis of gradient shows no effect on temperature gradient when co2 is rising.


The ice cores in no way corroborate or show any evidence to support the idea of climate sensitivity to co2.

And in fact are devastating evidence against this assertion.

Might be time for Hansen, Trenberth, and the gang of scientists so concerned with our welfare and prevention of DOOMSDAY SCENARIO, to get out the 'correcting crayon', and fix this uncooperative graph to bolster the spirits of the global warming faithful and their holy war against society to "combat climate change'.
Bret Cahill
2018-07-09 17:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blue
Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers
So when they _do _ agree as on AGW then you can be 100% certain what the scientists are agreeing upon is correct. The consensus has passed the acid test.

But science is a moot issue for deniers because deniers talking points have no basic in logic, let alone science, i.e., "it was hotter in the Big Bang, mass extinctions is natcheral, gotta die of sumthin' . . ."

Get the logic right _then_ maybe we'll discuss science.
R Kym Horsell
2018-07-09 18:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Blue
Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers
So when they _do _ agree as on AGW then you can be 100% certain what the scientists are agreeing upon is correct. The consensus has passed the acid test.
But science is a moot issue for deniers because deniers talking points have no basic in logic, let alone science, i.e., "it was hotter in the Big Bang, mass extinctions is natcheral, gotta die of sumthin' . . ."
Get the logic right _then_ maybe we'll discuss science.
Is all pretty funny coming from a bunch o hillbillies dat cain replicate
arithmetic eben qualitatively.
--
[On lack of specifics:]
Post by Bret Cahill
The std deviation of tornado counts in the US is around 350. I.e.
one year can have N and the next year have anywhere between 700 less and 700 more.
That is not what standard deviation means. You moron.
-- <***@gmail.com>, 20 Oct 2013

http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=1907
'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
the most useful indicators of whether somebody is lying:
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
Bret Cahill
2018-07-10 01:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Blue
Most scientists can't replicate studies by their peers
So when they _do _ agree as on AGW then you can be 100% certain what the scientists are agreeing upon is correct. The consensus has passed the acid test.
But science is a moot issue for deniers because deniers talking points have no basic in logic, let alone science, i.e., "it was hotter in the Big Bang, mass extinctions is natcheral, gotta die of sumthin' . . ."
Get the logic right _then_ maybe we'll discuss science.
Is all pretty funny coming from a bunch o hillbillies dat cain replicate
arithmetic eben qualitatively.
Even _one_ denier is too many to get hisself on one page, to get a consensus on a consistent set of denier talking points.
Post by R Kym Horsell
[On lack of specifics:]
Post by Bret Cahill
The std deviation of tornado counts in the US is around 350. I.e.
one year can have N and the next year have anywhere between 700 less and 700 more.
That is not what standard deviation means. You moron.
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=1907
'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
k***@gmail.com
2018-07-10 01:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
So when they _do _ agree as on AGW then you can be 100% certain what the scientists are agreeing upon is correct. The consensus has passed the acid test. ...
.....

Well go bet your ass on this 100% certainty, not ours.

Consensus says now that we can only emit about 450 billion more tons of co2 to stop temperature increase at 2C.
The world is right around 50 billion tons per yr now.
If you dispute this figure, give some reference. Why is it so hard to get reference on this most vital statistic?

That means that unless we completly stop co2 emissions in 9 yrs, Paris is futile and the promises are FALSE about 'capping' temperature rise.

Propaganda is defined as contradiction to established science or contemporary consensus.

Empirical science trumps contemporary consensus everytime.
Loading...