Worried about Global Cooling...

[burn_this_city]

We better ramp up oilsand production to counter this cooling effect.. The fate of the world depends on us..

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That is how science really works? No, science works through the observation and collection of measurable imperical data to prove/disprove a theory. By following a documented methodolgy these findings should not only be repeatable, but consistent, through independent trial. That is how science works.

Thanks for agreeing with me, finally. The science is NEVER in. Saying a conclusion is wrong because of where they get their funding is clearly not proof. It just shows your very obvious bias.

Most journals will not accept papers written without the repetition and independent verification through the peer review process. This peer review process has been around since the time of Plato and Socrates. This is the basis for concensus and scientific foundation. That is how science works.

Well since you read about Peer review process yesterday on the internet and now are an expert on the topic and of course know more than Nigel Calder. Why don't you peer review the conclusions from the data they used and show us all how biased they are. Why don't we start with Popular Mechanics.

[Clarkey]

'Unanamity' ain't a word dudes!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Thanks for agreeing with me, finally. The science is NEVER in. Saying a conclusion is wrong because of where they get their funding is clearly not proof. It just shows your very obvious bias.

Concensus on a unified theory means the science is in. The lack of any other unified theory proves the science is in. Live with it.

Well since you read about Peer review process yesterday on the internet and now are an expert on the topic and of course know more than Nigel Calder. Why don't you peer review the conclusions from the data they used and show us all how biased they are. Why don't we start with Popular Mechanics.

Yes, I clearly didn't know how the peer review process worked before you linked Nigel Calder's piss poor article on the subject. I guess all that time in graduate school and going through the whole process was a waste of time. All I needed was an inaccurate article by a bitter limey to set me straight.

What color is the sky in your world HOZ? No, don't bother answering. You're on your way to the ignore list with the likes of BrownOne, Trujew and Vanflamesfan; the mental giants of Calgarypuck!

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow, you really got me there. Dr. Horton's opinion on the peer review process, and he doesn't like the whole process. Poor guy, must have had several papers rejected. Fact of the matter is that the peer review process is all of those things that Horton says and more. Anyone who has submitted what they thought was a good paper only to see it rejected and torn to pieces is sure to be jaded. Its not a fun process to go through. Unfortunately it is the best and most accepted way of proving your data to be valid. If someone can suggest a better way of making scientists prove the validity of their work, feel free to post one. I'd certainly like to take it and forward it to my university for evaluation. Having said that, it is still the only process that identifies valid work in the scientific community. Cry all you want, but that's the way it is.

Now how did you put that? Soak that up buttercup.

My Bad! I should of made that assumption myself based on no evidence. round and round you go. Also he may have been paid by Big Oil to say that. I have no source, and niether do my sources, sources, but they have all been peered reviewed, whoever those peers might be we dont know.. but it must be right?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

If someone can suggest a better way of making scientists prove the validity of their work, feel free to post one.

Shootout.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

My Bad! I should of made that assumption myself based on no evidence. round and round you go. Also he may have been paid by Big Oil to say that. I have no source, and niether do my sources, sources, but they have all been peered reviewed, whoever those peers might be we dont know.. but it must be right?

Or maybe you could have read a bit more into the article itself. It seems to me that it was weak and a little bit of bitterness was showing through, which happens quite a bit when scientists fail to get published. Don't forget that these guys have pressure on them from their universities to get published. That is what maintains their position and wothout publication they are in for a rough ride.

Thinking further on the weaknesses of the counter arguments are the lack of basic epistemic values shown by the scientists on the counterside of the coin. Sure, they adhere to the values of predictive accuracy and internal coherence (no logical inconsistencies or unexplained coincidences), but they fall well short in the areas of external consistency (they contradict other accepted theories) , fertility (the ability to springboard off of one concept to the next) and the aforementioned unifying power or theory. This weakness brings the research into question and why it is not widely accepted. These values come into play and I'm sure a reason why certain research is not accepted or considered for publication.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by driveway

Shootout.

Haha.