Rick Perry selected for Energy Secretary

[Spartanmack]

Weather changes every day, not climate.

but climate is constantly changing.

 

[deathroh]

I wondered if weather is what tigermud meant...or if in fact, he was referring to the infinitesimal incremental changes that occur during any process of change...like when a child, or a puppy or a plant or a tree grows...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-iPp6yn0hw

Damn, I wish I could have watched that video back during my mushroom days.

 

[Gulo Blue]

but climate is constantly changing.

You mean that in the pedantic technical sense (of no practical value) or something else?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Damn, I wish I could have watched that video back during my mushroom days.

BBC Planet Earth has done some amazing time lapse stuff. This is already 7 years old. I can't wait to see Planet Earth 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX2RtDE9BBw

 

[Spartanmack]

You mean that in the pedantic technical sense (of no practical value) or something else?

No, I mean it's entirely possible that what we're experiencing isn't caused by man. We don't actually know what we're experiencing because we're being lied to by a kabal of scientists that have been shown to intentionally manipulate data and suppress any dissent. The science isn't settled, no matter how many times Bob quotes the false 97% consensus of scientists.

 

[Gulo Blue]

No, I mean it's entirely possible that what we're experiencing isn't caused by man. We don't actually know what we're experiencing because we're being lied to by a kabal of scientists that have been shown to intentionally manipulate data and suppress any dissent. The science isn't settled, no matter how many times Bob quotes the false 97% consensus of scientists.

There are unsettled elements and settled elements. Pointing to the unsettled details and rejecting the whole thing is intellectually dishonest.

"lied to by a kabal of scientists"

Come on. That's tinfoil hat stuff. Scientists are just people. I'm not going to idealize and act like they are above financial influences or susceptible to herd mentality, but on the other hand you have to recognize that there are too many of them in too many places for a kabal to control and the money has pushed towards ignoring the possibility of man impacting climate change. Scientists are competitive and arrogant, like everybody else.

Edit: in case my point wasn't clear, scientists are competitive and arrogant, and while that does create the occasional liar (see cloning research), it also makes them more difficult to control as a group

 

[Michchamp]

it is a little extreme, even for the board's resident dipshit, to shrug off the boatloads of money the oil industry funnels to climate change skeptics & friendly politicians as immaterial, but readily believes in a "kabal [sic] of scientists that intentionally manipulate data" with no evidence whatsoever.

& no climategate was not evidence. unless you're a dipshit.

 

[deathroh]

BBC Planet Earth has done some amazing time lapse stuff. This is already 7 years old. I can't wait to see Planet Earth 2.

Nice! We have the dvd collection of Planet Earth (the Discovery Channel version) and the kids love it. I'll have to be on the lookout for part 2.

 

[biggunsbob]

No, I mean it's entirely possible that what we're experiencing isn't caused by man. We don't actually know what we're experiencing because we're being lied to by a kabal of scientists that have been shown to intentionally manipulate data and suppress any dissent. The science isn't settled, no matter how many times Bob quotes the false 97% consensus of scientists.

Get ready for data manipulation because the Climate change deniers are leading the charge under Mr Orange!!!! Just like under Bush administration and those guys are even appalled at his picks which is pretty funny. ....
Hey Hack if it's 51 % or 97 % what's the difference ? Make the world a better place for everyone is a novel concept. The science is overwhelming but just keep sticking your head in the sand like you always do.

 

[Gulo Blue]

People like to joke/stereotype about the peer review process. Typically there are 3 reviewers. One gives you a genuinely good review with constructive criticism that makes your paper better. One think everything about your paper is great with a single criticism, you should have discussed how your work relates to some other finding. While the process is anonymous, you know who this guy is because he's just trying to get you to cite his work. The third reviewer hates everything about your paper and can't find enough ways to to suggest that your intelligence is suspect.

There are lots of different opinions on how to deal with this 3rd reviewer. Do you go fully combative? Do you yield on some smaller points to preserve your main arguments? Sometimes you just can't make the 3rd reviewer happy and you have to appeal to the editor. By that point, you have a good chance of getting rejected.

 

[biggunsbob]

Trump's picks on climate are laughable!!!!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58507c5ae4b0ee009eb44512

 

[Michchamp]

People like to joke/stereotype about the peer review process. Typically there are 3 reviewers. One gives you a genuinely good review with constructive criticism that makes your paper better. One think everything about your paper is great with a single criticism, you should have discussed how your work relates to some other finding. While the process is anonymous, you know who this guy is because he's just trying to get you to cite his work. The third reviewer hates everything about your paper and can't find enough ways to to suggest that your intelligence is suspect.

There are lots of different opinions on how to deal with this 3rd reviewer. Do you go fully combative? Do you yield on some smaller points to preserve your main arguments? Sometimes you just can't make the 3rd reviewer happy and you have to appeal to the editor. By that point, you have a good chance of getting rejected.

handle it the Trump way. tweet:

Reviewer #3 baselessly attacking my paper. jealous of my success. allowed to hold up research b/c of his own personal problems. sad!​

then sit back and watch your horde of mouth-breathing admirers attack Reviewer 3, threaten his/her life, family, career, etc. they'll back off in a hurry.

 

[sggatecl]

No, I mean it's entirely possible that what we're experiencing isn't caused by man. We don't actually know what we're experiencing because we're being lied to by a kabal of scientists that have been shown to intentionally manipulate data and suppress any dissent. The science isn't settled, no matter how many times Bob quotes the false 97% consensus of scientists.

So because a couple scientists fudged some data, the rest must be in on the 'conspiracy' too? I guess all Catholic priests are pedophiles and all postal workers are prone to homicidal episodes too. Any other blanket, snap judgments we're making today?

 

[tigermud]

all I know is that MI keeps getting caught up in those cold ass man bear pig vortexes. More likely the globe is entering into a new prolonged mini ice age. If so thank goodness for any warming that may help reduce the impact.

http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

 

[Michchamp]

all I know is...

Nothing. You know nothing.

 

[tigermud]

Nothing. You know nothing.

oh you so funny mich chump standing bark O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LN6-pMBXsg

 

[Spartanmack]

There are unsettled elements and settled elements. Pointing to the unsettled details and rejecting the whole thing is intellectually dishonest.

"lied to by a kabal of scientists"

Come on. That's tinfoil hat stuff. Scientists are just people. I'm not going to idealize and act like they are above financial influences or susceptible to herd mentality, but on the other hand you have to recognize that there are too many of them in too many places for a kabal to control and the money has pushed towards ignoring the possibility of man impacting climate change. Scientists are competitive and arrogant, like everybody else.

Edit: in case my point wasn't clear, scientists are competitive and arrogant, and while that does create the occasional liar (see cloning research), it also makes them more difficult to control as a group

I'm not rejecting the whole thing - I'm saying it's unsettled. There's a big difference. And it's not tin foil hat stuff, saying it is is what's intellectually dishonest. there were hacked emails that revealed that "scientists" were manipulating data and conspiring to silence the opposition. Those are facts.

 

[Spartanmack]

Get ready for data manipulation because the Climate change deniers are leading the charge under Mr Orange!!!! Just like under Bush administration and those guys are even appalled at his picks which is pretty funny. ....
Hey Hack if it's 51 % or 97 % what's the difference ? Make the world a better place for everyone is a novel concept. The science is overwhelming but just keep sticking your head in the sand like you always do.

because science doesn't depend on a majority. I'm all for pollution control, protecting water and air but I'm not ready to commit trillions of dollars to transform our economy, social structures and way of life because of global warming alarmists and morons that think consensus is part of the scientific method (I'm talking about you here - you're one of the morons).

 

[Spartanmack]

So because a couple scientists fudged some data, the rest must be in on the 'conspiracy' too? I guess all Catholic priests are pedophiles and all postal workers are prone to homicidal episodes too. Any other blanket, snap judgments we're making today?

show me where I said the rest are - I referred to a cabal of scientists. If you're referring to the 97% as all the rest, that figure has been debunked. Again, consensus is not part of the scientific method but since so many people here seem to think it is or is all that matters, the actual "consensus" isn't anywhere near 97%. And it's not just a bunch of fringe wackos that don't agree. But you'll never hear about it because it doesn't fit the narrative the popular press has chosen to push.

 

[Spartanmack]

People like to joke/stereotype about the peer review process. Typically there are 3 reviewers. One gives you a genuinely good review with constructive criticism that makes your paper better. One think everything about your paper is great with a single criticism, you should have discussed how your work relates to some other finding. While the process is anonymous, you know who this guy is because he's just trying to get you to cite his work. The third reviewer hates everything about your paper and can't find enough ways to to suggest that your intelligence is suspect.

There are lots of different opinions on how to deal with this 3rd reviewer. Do you go fully combative? Do you yield on some smaller points to preserve your main arguments? Sometimes you just can't make the 3rd reviewer happy and you have to appeal to the editor. By that point, you have a good chance of getting rejected.

the process itself is largely misunderstood. Isn't it the case that peer review isn't a validation of results or conclusions and rather a review of the process and controls? Also, didn't the 97% study determine who was a climate expert based on the number of peer reviewed papers published on climate? That's seems a bit sketchy - write a paper or papers, get people who agree with you to affirm them and be labeled an "expert."