SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Job]

Quite a serious accusation...but I suspect it is true.
With us or against us is a human trait that pops up its ugly head all the time.

 

[rynnor]

Quite a serious accusation...but I suspect it is true.
With us or against us is a human trait that pops up its ugly head all the time.

It is serious but I have it on good authority from a close colleague of these gentlemen - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/

For some years they have been trying to get an update to their original paper published in a peer reviewed journal with further data that reinforces their original theory but it never gets through peer review with nebulous objections repeatedly raised (they were then told off the record that it was because of it's potential contentiousness with the AGW theory).

They wont pursue it for fear that they will lose access to the telescopes they need to collect their data. It's pretty damning for scientific publishing - the idea of peer reviews was to ensure quality not to supress inconvenient theories that contradict established 'science'.

 

[Scouse]

Yes but there's an inbuilt problem there - it's extremely hard to get anything that could feed the sceptics accepted into a peer reviewed journal nowadays...

Even articles that don't even mention climate change but that potentially conflict with the accepted view of other processes are being blocked.

I agree with your assertion on freedom of speech, but I'd like to see evidence of this serious accusation.

Many papers are blocked because they don't conform to accepted standards. I cannot see any reason to block any research that conforms to accepted standards.

Remember, research is submitted to peer review. If the science is incorrect then peer review is the process that uncovers it. It's to the advantage of skeptics to publish their science and have it found good, but equally advantageous to those on the other side of the argument to have a good piece of science taken apart by peer review.

But most importantly - it's clearly disadvantageous to people who think global warming is happening to deny publication of good science.

 

[Raven]

I agree with your assertion on freedom of speech, but I'd like to see evidence of this serious accusation.

Many papers are blocked because they don't conform to accepted standards. I cannot see any reason to block any research that conforms to accepted standards.

Remember, research is submitted to peer review. If the science is incorrect then peer review is the process that uncovers it. It's to the advantage of skeptics to publish their science and have it found good, but equally advantageous to those on the other side of the argument to have a good piece of science taken apart by peer review.

But most importantly - it's clearly disadvantageous to people who think global warming is happening to deny publication of good science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-allen/reddits-science-forum-ban_b_4455825.html

 

[Job]

Has this been posted?
Not sure if its fake, but it is on an official sounding url

Watkins is seriously fucked up, NSFW or your lunch
EDIT: no offence but that is some seriously f'd up stuff that dude did and I'm not sure I want FH to link to it.

 

[rynnor]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-allen/reddits-science-forum-ban_b_4455825.html

"When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus."

Science is not about the search for consensus - its the search for truth. Expecting people to reflect the consensus is basically saying you must tow the party line.

 

[Raven]

Redit credibility drops to zero over night.

 

[Job]

I posted on Reddit that 99% of scientists believed through undeniable evidence that the planets were held up by crystal spheres.
Got about 50 downvotes

 

[Ch3tan]

"When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus."

Science is not about the search for consensus - its the search for truth. Expecting people to reflect the consensus is basically saying you must tow the party line.

Wow, it scares me that a scientist (allegedly) thinks this okay. Head in sand.

 

[Scouse]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-allen/reddits-science-forum-ban_b_4455825.html

Raven, that's fucking reddit for gods sake. Not a scientific review journal.

What idiot humans other than actual scientists (journalists, politicians, website owners, opinionated taxi drivers) do regarding free information is their own business.

However, actual scientists who think that skeptics are full of shit would welcome publication of science for peer review. It's the only way they get a chance to shoot it down.

Otherwise it's just tin-foil hattery and supposition.

 

[Scouse]

From the thing you posted tho @Raven:

Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn't even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.

That's reddits reason for banning it.

I still don't support them banning it. It's an idiotic own goal - because people like you and rynnor have immediately equated reddit, a fucking website, with some conspiracy to throttle genuine climate science, rather than a mistaken person making an idiotic, and obvious, tactical mistake - probably because his forum's being trolled too much.

There's a parallel: It's a bit like me snapping at toht when I'm trying to have a serious discussion with someone else and he constantly derails it. It's one of the reasons serious discussion and the old-style reasoned debate is harder to come by on FH.

 

[old.Osy]

Definetely hard when you jump in.

 

[Raven]

From the thing you posted tho @Raven:


That's reddits reason for banning it.

I still don't support them banning it. It's an idiotic own goal - because people like you and rynnor have immediately equated reddit, a fucking website, with some conspiracy to throttle genuine climate science, rather than a mistaken person making an idiotic, and obvious, tactical mistake - probably because his forum's being trolled too much.

There's a parallel: It's a bit like me snapping at toht when I'm trying to have a serious discussion with someone else and he constantly derails it. It's one of the reasons serious discussion and the old-style reasoned debate is harder to come by on FH.

Wo there, words in mouth putterer. I just posted a link because I thought you wanted proof that Reddit had gone full retard mode.

I am sure all the science is peer reviewed...still doesn't stop it being wrong That's the beauty of science, it can and does get it wrong and scientific fact changes all the time and is also open to manipulation.

Science should be open to all criticism, otherwise it is one step away from religion. There are plenty of credible scientists doing credible science that are shunned because they want to explore alternatives to the common held view, threats of removal of funding, removal of access to equipment and data etc. Stopping them is not scientific whichever way you look at it.

Take solar activity as an example, it could well be the cause, it could well be a contributing factor, it could well have no effect...they aren't allowed to look into it properly though because they get threatened at every turn.

 

[Job]

I have every belief that the scientific community is open to the same forces as the Facebook community.
Jealousy, elitism, fear of not fitting in, we just have to hope they keep it to the minimum.

 

[TdC]

I want to eat all of these. Preferably right now.

http://9gag.com/gag/aeN998W

 

[Scouse]

Take solar activity as an example, it could well be the cause, it could well be a contributing factor, it could well have no effect...they aren't allowed to look into it properly though because they get threatened at every turn.

I don't doubt that science is subject to the same human whims as anything else - but publishing and peer review means that, as long as it's open, published and peer-reviewed then it isn't open to manipulation. I.E. when the process is followed the evidence is clear - and open to criticism.

I think that scientists are allowed to look at all causes of global warming properly. And they've come up with a set of peer-reviewed evidence that gives them confidence that global warming is man made and real.

Evidence to the contrary has in the past been welcomed and continues to be so. As long as it's sufficient quality and the research comes up to standards there's no reason not to submit to peer review - and no reason respectable scientific journals would turn the science away - which is what we're talking about here.

This thread suffers very much from the reddit problem - that there's not very much evidence to support the opposing viewpoint (i.e. yours and rynnor's). Not well-researched and peer-reviewed stuff. Rynnor's argument on the solar front is that "a mate he trusts tells him...".

It's conspiracy and fluff. The journals aren't suppressing a thing. If something's turned away then it's because it's shite with bad method.


And btw - the "can't get funding for opposing science" argument is absolute bullshit - oil and coal companies would love nothing better than to disprove global warming and then crack on with more mining and the frackapalooza-bonanza. But they can't.

Not with science, at any rate.

 

[rynnor]

From the thing you posted tho @Raven:

That's reddits reason for banning it.

I still don't support them banning it. It's an idiotic own goal - because people like you and rynnor have immediately equated reddit, a fucking website, with some conspiracy to throttle genuine climate science, rather than a mistaken person making an idiotic, and obvious, tactical mistake - probably because his forum's being trolled too much.

There's a parallel: It's a bit like me snapping at toht when I'm trying to have a serious discussion with someone else and he constantly derails it. It's one of the reasons serious discussion and the old-style reasoned debate is harder to come by on FH.

It just seems like a weird move for a discussion site - no doubt there were trolls on both sides.

I don't personally use reddit as I'm not a fan but it is reflecting an unhealthy wider attitude that scientific debate is over.

 

[Job]

I guess sceptics need to form a hypothosis of their percieved manipulation of results and test it in the real world...Im pretty sure if they joined forces snd presented a concise scientific paper it would contain some eye opening results.

 

[Scouse]

It just seems like a weird move for a discussion site - no doubt there were trolls on both sides.

Yep. And the trolling was their reason for doing it.

I can understand it - where does a big collection of actual scientists go to have an debate that's worthwhile without having to succumb to idiots and trolls? Not reddit anymore, apparently. Well, not until the recent move.

However, I still disagree with it. For a number of reasons, including the one you've provided evidence for:

I don't personally use reddit as I'm not a fan but it is reflecting an unhealthy wider attitude that scientific debate is over.

Scientific debate is never over. Not in the journals - which is where the debate happens through the submission of evidence.

It's wider society that feels that it ain't happening. But it is. The scientists themselves are following where the evidence goes - and if we don't like where it goes we have to do what science tells us to - produce solid evidence to the contrary or STFU.


Edit: Which is what reddit's trying to enforce. In a ham-fisted fashion.

 

[rynnor]

I know that the spectre of oil funded anti AGW is an article of faith to Green conspiracy nuts but theres no real evidence of it.

Theres plenty of scientists struggling for funding with research that might threaten the consensus.

Svensmark who has a theory based on cosmic rays effect on climate has really struggled.

If the oil conspiracy was true they would be falling over themselves to fund that.

The reality is that oil companies are now investors in various green technologies and are quite content with the consensus.

 

[rynnor]

Yep. And the trolling was their reason for doing it.

They banned one side of an arguement to prevent trolls? Does that really stand up?

 

[Scouse]

They banned one side of an arguement to prevent trolls? Does that really stand up?

No. As I've said repeatedly - it doesn't.

 

[rynnor]

I don't doubt that science is subject to the same human whims as anything else - but publishing and peer review means that, as long as it's open, published and peer-reviewed then it isn't open to manipulation. I.E. when the process is followed the evidence is clear - and open to criticism.

I think that scientists are allowed to look at all causes of global warming properly. And they've come up with a set of peer-reviewed evidence that gives them confidence that global warming is man made and real.

Evidence to the contrary has in the past been welcomed and continues to be so. As long as it's sufficient quality and the research comes up to standards there's no reason not to submit to peer review - and no reason respectable scientific journals would turn the science away - which is what we're talking about here.

This thread suffers very much from the reddit problem - that there's not very much evidence to support the opposing viewpoint (i.e. yours and rynnor's). Not well-researched and peer-reviewed stuff. Rynnor's argument on the solar front is that "a mate he trusts tells him...".

It's conspiracy and fluff. The journals aren't suppressing a thing. If something's turned away then it's because it's shite with bad method.

And btw - the "can't get funding for opposing science" argument is absolute bullshit - oil and coal companies would love nothing better than to disprove global warming and then crack on with more mining and the frackapalooza-bonanza. But they can't.

Not with science, at any rate.

As I said L&P won't pursue that because it will impact their access to the basic data and because it's almost impossible to prove the motivation behind an endlessly blocking peer review unless they are stupid enough to write it down.

 

[Scouse]

Svensmark who has a theory based on cosmic rays effect on climate has really struggled.

No. He hasn't.

There's a number of ongoing research projects related to his paper. Evidence is being submitted. His theory is taking a lot of knocks - as it would do because that's the nature of science. And you know what? It looks at the moment like it's not standing up to peer-review.

He can piss and moan all he likes if he wants to. Though it's futile - because normal, standard, scientific debate, in peer-reviewed journals through the submission of evidence, is beginning to show that his idea isn't causal in climate change.

But one thing can be said - that his piece of work kicked off lots of pieces of work (including at CERN but all over the shop) - which shows his argument was taken seriously. His paper was published in the Physical Review Letters, one of the most respected peer review journals in the world - and people have done serious science to check on his claims.


He's part of the debate. His voice has been heard. This is science working the way it should.

 

[Scouse]

As I said L&P won't pursue that because it will impact their access to the basic data and because it's almost impossible to prove the motivation behind an endlessly blocking peer review unless they are stupid enough to write it down.

When you submit to a scientific journal you get an explaination why it's been turned down.

If you don't like it, you can go to any number of conferences and bring the subject up in public.

If you don't follow that open, obvious procedure, but still claim your science is correct, it marks you as a fruitcake. If you bleat on about it then you've simply become one of the many who cry because they can't accept they're wrong and then push their half-baked (literally, without peer review) theories as "facts that are being ignored", rather than "shit that's full of fail"

 

[Access Denied]

Make a separate thread ffs!! This is the spam thread, not the global warming thread. In fact, if memory serves there IS a global warming thread kicking about. So if you want to argue about it, fuck off there.

In other news. I tried the classic shell but Windows 8 still annoys. Finding Win7 drivers was a massive ball-ache but so worth it.

 

[rynnor]

When you submit to a scientific journal you get an explaination why it's been turned down.

Of course but it's possible to abuse this turning it into peer review tennis - I'll dig out an example when I get home.

 

[Job]

The difference for me is that AGW theory has a huge amount of eminent and respected scientists who disagree with many of its conclusions, it is FAR FAR from settled...and of course like any theory never really is.

News just in OMG...looks like....continued in global warming thread...

 

[rynnor]

This is a peer review where I think they had asked somebody from a competing theory to peer review it with predictable results:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/leif_idv09-review-history.pdf

Spot how many times he requests the original data despite them sharing it.

 

[Madmaxx]

haha I like the "No your dead, I'm sick of dying"


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzl1pV9dEPM