BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 so, yeah. so you can't explain to me how it works? ??? Again, I gave an Example of a Circumstance. I was not referring to a published paper... I don't know why you cannot understand that. Expain to me then, where is the list of reviewers available? Is it available at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 but you continually assumed that any paper he wrote would only go to sympathetic reviewers. why would you make that assumption? wait--you kept telling me there was a public list of reviewers. are you now retracting that assertion? 1) Quote me, do it. I never made that assumption. 2) I said info on the peer review system and now it works is available online to everyone, not a "list of reviewers". This is getting funny So answer me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It wouldn't be that way if She debated the actual Science with me. I'm not a Guru on Paper Publication, but I'm smart enough to know its irrelavent at this time. The argument we're having doesn't prove or disprove the vailidity of the Science, since the paper is has not been accepted or rejected to this point. If it gets rejected, we'll hear about it. She is not going to debate Science with you when you post articles that are irrelavent due to the many of the things she has listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickman Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 I'm rather enjoying this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avdave Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 7 people in this forum at once, this must be a record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 She is not going to debate Science with you when you post articles that are irrelavent due to the many of the things she has listed. Irrelavent to what? If the science is accurate, the science is accurate. These are basic laws of therodynamics. The peer review argument is off topic in regards to the direct accuracy of the science, as if 20 scientists, some Pro AGW, using basic laws of physics, are going to make up data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 If anyone knows John Sullivan, he owes me $20 I spotted him for lunch back in 1996. Never loan a biologist money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Irrelavent to what? If the science is accurate, the science is accurate. These are basic laws of therodynamics. The peer review argument is off topic in regards to the direct accuracy of the science, as if 20 scientists, some Pro AGW, using basic laws of physics, are going to make up data. Wait... Weren't you the one talking about how important it is to have "unbiased" reviewers earlier in this very thread (I'm assuming you get to decide the definition of "bias", of course)? If Hansen's science is accurate, it's accurate. As if all the scientists who worked on his papers are going to make up data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 the author is a kook, thus he violates the first law of scientific publishing: don't publish kooks or their fake science. he is a biologist, he works at a made up institute located in his bedroom, he has no training in physics, and the fact he self-publishes on the web means that his ideas have been found wanting by his peers. it's crap and it shouldn't even have been posted to a halfway serious forum focused on climate change. Making pigsh*t up out of your head must be Fun. I suggest providing evidence. Maybe you'd know that 1) The Author did NOT do the physical analysis 2) The 20 scientists who did, many PHD's, have supporting evidence for their claims based on Natural Laws pf Physics. Therodynamics be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Wait... Weren't you the one talking about how important it is to have "unbiased" reviewers earlier in this very thread (I'm assuming you get to decide the definition of "bias", of course)? If Hansen's science is accurate, it's accurate. As if all the scientists who worked on his papers are going to make up data. Its simple, how have his predictions verified? That should answer your question. If they had verified, I would not have referenced him, or the IPCC. There is the Misconception here that one biologist "invented" these numbers. I have no idea where that is coming from, using basic therodynamics laws to disprove emissisivty of Co2 somehow is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Alot of people here online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 how many freaking times is the word "irrelevant" going to be misspelled in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Bethesda was demolished EF-5 damage. Someone needs to pull OEM away from his alpacas to declare a state of emergency. Alot of people here online Rubberneckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Its simple, how have his predictions verified? If they had verified, I would not have referenced him, or the IPCC. Is the peer-review process important or not? You can't have it both ways and claim "bias" on one side, and say the process is irrelevant to the discussion on the other. how many freaking times is the word "irrelevant" going to be misspelled in this thread? Glad I spelled it right for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Dr. Anderson is a Physicist, not a Biologist. There are many Physicists sourced within the paper, as well as many who worked on it. Maybe look up who was behind the Physical analysis, out of the 20 scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Is the peer-review process important or not? You can't have it both ways and claim "bias" on one side, and say the process is irrelevant to the discussion on the other. Glad I spelled it right for you. The Science is important, and since Hansen's "Predictions" have been failing miserably, I do not see how his pubished science is accurate. Just because a science is generally accepted doesn't mean its not a "kook" (as trix says) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 About Me Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. I enjoy rational analytical conversations, learning from thinking people, and solving problems of science and technology. My perspective is that of an Objectivist with a joyous sense of life, a great appreciation for human complexity and achievement, and a benevolent and tolerant regard for others. Nothing clarifies understanding like writing about it or trying to teach it. A recurring theme is the importance of individuality and the fight for individual rights against the onslaught of the Nanny State and socialism. I wish to live the life of a rational self-managing adult and am amazed that so many others wish to be perpetual children. The fear, envy, and guilt that cause many to yield their individual rights to collectivism are ugly, anti-life emotions. I consistently believe in both the personal and the economic rights of the sovereign individual. As the United States Declaration of Independence says, each of us has the selfish right to our life, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness. Our mostly ignored Constitution attempts to severely limit the powers of the federal government and to preserve the development and the exercise of our individual conscience. Your Point Being? Why are you posting his political view? Is this political paranoia on your part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 charles anderson sounds like a good dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 charles anderson sounds like a good dude I'd build a compound in Montana with him anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 Hansen isn't a kook by any stretch of the imagination. Where did I say Hansen is a Kook? I was referring to his science. Although I do believe he is a kook after his consistant Arrests Its been 2 or 3 arrests in the past several years... Even I've never had that many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Dr. Anderson is a Physicist, not a Biologist. There are many Physicists sourced within the paper, as well as many who worked on it. Maybe look up who was behind the Physical analysis, out of the 20 scientists. Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands.By Nasif S. Nahle Scientist, University Professor and Director of Scientific Research Division at Biology Cabinet Mexico The paper was authored by one guy (with obviously a lot of help from a second kook, Anderson. But one kook or two, makes little difference). Whether he had the help of "20 scientists" or not, he is responsible for the contents of the paper. If he sourced a climate scientist for providing the absorption spectrum of CO2 alone, that says nothing of that scientist's opinion of Nahle's paper (especially since it's not published in a respected scientific journal). I could write a paper stating that the sun revolves around Earth, come up with some ridiculous way to "prove" it that happens to use measurements from the experiments of a respected astronomer, and cite that research in my paper. That doesn't make my crackpot theory any more or less valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 his science isn't kooky either. It is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 It is. That is not Hansen's "prediction". That (I'm assuming) is a mean within the range of one of his scenarios... and isn't that one from one of his earliest papers? He's revised his estimates several times, no? And the "actual" graph is suspect, too (why end in 2009?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 The paper was authored by one guy (with obviously a lot of help from a second kook, Anderson. But one kook or two, makes little difference). Whether he had the help of "20 scientists" or not, he is responsible for the contents of the paper. If he sourced a climate scientist for providing the absorption spectrum of CO2 alone, that says nothing of that scientist's opinion of Nahle's paper (especially since it's not published in a respected scientific journal). I could write a paper stating that the sun revolves around Earth, come up with some ridiculous way to "prove" it that happens to use measurements from the experiments of a respected astronomer, and cite that research in my paper. That doesn't make my crackpot theory any more or less valid. Completely irrelavent, you could never prove the Sun revolves around the earth, because we've been in space and know its not true. Because he did not do the physical analysis himself, you can only hold those responsible who did. As in, using basic laws of Therodynamics to conduct an expirment of the emissivity of Co2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 That is not Hansen's "prediction". That (I'm assuming) is a mean within the range of one of his scenarios... and isn't that one from one of his earliest papers? He's revised his estimates several times, no? And the "actual" graph is suspect, too (why end in 2009?) It was his 1988 prediction, Scenario A Point being, science changes whe regarding Hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 it's entirely possible he misunderstood or misrepresented the citations he uses. But most Likely, it isn't. Remember, he didn't write this paper alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 This thread is missing something without Skier chiming in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 why are skeptics always so damn kooky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 serious question: you were home-schooled, right? No, I graduated from Walt Whitman High. If you're going to deny Hansen's 1988 prediction even exists, then I don't know what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 19, 2011 Author Share Posted April 19, 2011 why are skeptics always so damn kooky? Kush talking about kookiness.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.