go get the bird wrote:Spinner is likely the most educated person on this site, which clearly includes you.
Yet I'm still wrong about things all the time. I was under the misconception that that ceased when I got my Ph.D. Too many forget it did not. I've learned that there was a lot more truth to the wisdom of my grandfather and his 8th grade education when he told me what my future degrees would mean.
B.S. - Bull$hit
M.S. More $hit
Ph.D. Piled Higher and Deeper
huntmmup wrote:You guys are such a joke with your fancy degrees and everything.
Unless you agree with them, then you will appeal to the authority of that fancy degree. Right?
I'm trying to help you understand a world you clearly do not understand.
The most critical part of science is to be critical, especially when you are seeing or being told what you want to be true. Why must scientists use double blind studies if they see the world without bias? We all have a tendency to see what we want to see even when it is not there. This has been proven true a million times in a million different ways. That is never more true than when the only people that do not see a particular thing are mocked and derided.
They'll learn to get on board sooner or later.
huntmmup wrote::lol3: 9,136 out of 9,137 of the PhDs who have published peer reviewed articles in the last year on climate change is "a meaningless triviality."
You do not have to have a Ph.D. to publish a peer reviewed article
I had quite a few peer-reviewed journal articles as a grad student before I got my Ph.D. Try to keep your statements truthful
I seriously doubt that that was 9,137 different authors. Most researchers are authors on multiple papers, especially if they are a professor. The most I've been an author on in one year is 3 or 4 and I have never been a professor.
How may different authors?
You jump to conclusion way too quickly, when you do not understand. You want to make an appeal to authority on something that you clearly do not understand. I'm trying to inform you on the academic research world, something I have been part of now for two decades. My first peer-reviewed journal article was in 1995.
huntmmup wrote:14,000 of 14,024 peer reviewed articles since 1991 is "a meaningless triviality"
That is not what I am saying. The work of these researchers was not trivial, what the author of your link did was trivial. The point he makes is a trivial one. It's like saying all climatologists agree the earth is warmed by the sun. I'm sure all of them had that as part of their papers as well.
Each of those 14,024 article is focused on some specific item of interest to some researcher or group of researchers somewhere. They are not specifically researching whether the effective of CO2 is positive, negative, or zero. At least I hope not. They are doing something far more focused and specific. We know the sign is positive. We do not know the slope, the time lags, and so much more and that is where the research is. In case you have not followed, I AGREE MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! That doesn't mean I have to agree with the way any particular idiot comes to that conclusion. If he looked at Tarot cards and came to the right conclusion, would that prove Tarot cards work?
A large fraction of these papers probably graduate students publishing their work so they can start building their resume with their thesis adviser and a few other colleagues included as authors on the paper.
Another large fraction is the result of government grants and the professors publishing the results of the research so they can continue getting more grants by padding the resume.
Ever hear the phrase publish or perish
? It is quite relevant. Those that are good at it, get a lot of papers out of relatively small progress in their research. If you are a big shot in the field, few journals want to reject your papers, so they crank out the papers.
Another inherent bias in publishing papers is that when a research finds nothing, they do not publish that paper. A simple example, a research things giving XxYyZz chemical will cause cancer, so they give a bunch of mice a good dose of the chemical and then they compare it to the control group and find nothing. Do they go to the trouble of writing a paper? Unlikely.
Now given that everybody already "knows" the effects of more CO2, what value is there to publish a journal article if your research shows that there is little to no impact of CO2? Do you want to be that 2nd guy that gets mocked in your example? Or are you simply going to assume that you must be wrong and set about to "fix" your embedded assumptions so that your results correspond with what you already know to be true.
Where we all get wrapped around the axle is what people mean by manmade global warming?
The warmers seem to generally mean man has some effect, period. Most think it is probably really bad, but as long as they prove there is some effect, then they declare victory as if that proves something meaningful. It does not.
There are some in the warmer crowd that do mean waterworld is on the way and those are the people the deniers focus on to feel like they are right.
The denier seem to general mean that there is no definitive proof of catastrophic consequences and not that man has zero impact. After all, that is so blindingly obvious. So they declare victory. Most then take that to mean that quite bad results are out of the realm of possibility. It does not.
There are some deniers in the crowd that absolutely insist that more CO2 will have absolutely zero effect and those are the people the warmers focus on to feel like they are right.
As a result, nobody is talking about the same thing. In my never humble opinion, I think a large fraction of the people dug in on both sides are idiots. They see what they want to see and the believe what they want to believe and nothing will ever change their mind. They will never be skeptical of their own beliefs. It is a religion for the warmers and the deniers and all know data simply must be forced to fit their belief. Neither side is immune to this.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.