400 Scientific Papers In 2017 Say Global Warming Is A Myth

[RED]

=Thank you for your rant! It proved once again that I am right.-

How did you come to that conclusion?

My post predicted that no matter what the 400 scientific papers said, it would be denied and contradicted by the haters. In fact, if the top 100,000 scientists were to conclude global warming is caused by some natural phenomenal occurrence that happens ever 10,000 years or so, the haters along with our Three Stooges + Shemp would still deny it's validity. They still think Putin stole the election election for Trump, that Clinton had no hand in the Russian Uranium sale, and the so called "dossier," is 100% accurate.

Have you ever seen one of the haters admit he was ever wrong about anything? We are lucky that we have some honest people here that have broken ranks on occasions. I make mistakes too often and that is because I am human and humans are never perfect. Have you ever seen the haters say, "I believe... or I think... or it is my opinion?" Never... instead when 400 scientists (humans) come out with their opinion they denigrate them:

About those 400 papers... Sounds like a lot, but it's 3% of the volume, and at that a manageable number to review. So some folks did. Guess what? Flaws that when fixed bring them in line with the rest.

That statement slams 400 scientists as being fools. Their conclusions are meaningless because a "...manageable number to review. So some folks did." Ah I would bet my ranch that those "folks" included Algore and Alfranken types.

[Jiminvirginia]

It just never stops. Let's just be clean.

[togor]

Red clearly doesn't understand how real science works. Papers are published precisely to receive scrutiny, because independent duplication of results is such a strong aspect of the culture. Nobody gets the label "fool" in their world for making an honest mistake in cutting edge science. People don't celebrate making them, but they accept the risk as part of the profession.

Pons and Fleischman took it hard because they oversold their results given the magnitude of their errors. Then there was the Italian group at Gran Sasso who seemed to measure neutrinos coming out of CERN at speeds faster than light. They understood the obvious problem with this result and published in part to get more people looking at the problem. Indeed a subtle problem with the equipment was found and they came out of it okay.

Scientists routinely publish papers to foster broader discussion in the field. Unlike you Red they don't flip out when someone disagrees with them. If you don't mind my asking, in what field did you get your degree?

[RED]

Red clearly doesn't understand how real science works. Papers are published precisely to receive scrutiny, because independent duplication of results is such a strong aspect of the culture. Nobody gets the label "fool" in their world for making an honest mistake in cutting edge science. People don't celebrate making them, but they accept the risk as part of the profession.

Pons and Fleischman took it hard because they oversold their results given the magnitude of their errors. Then there was the Italian group at Gran Sasso who seemed to measure neutrinos coming out of CERN at speeds faster than light. They understood the obvious problem with this result and published in part to get more people looking at the problem. Indeed a subtle problem with the equipment was found and they came out of it okay.

Scientists routinely publish papers to foster broader discussion in the field. Unlike you Red they don't flip out when someone disagrees with them. If you don't mind my asking, in what field did you get your degree?

You are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong. You obviously have PHD degrees in Environmental Science, Climatology, Geophysics, Astronomy, Geology, Math, Physics, Chemistry, History, Political Science and have coached several NFL teams.

On the other hand I only have a little, teeny, tiny bit of common sense. In my simple little mind, to form a scientific theory one needs to have empirical evidence that is measurable, and a hypotheses that can be tested and verified. My little bitty simple mind suggests that none, not one, of your learned PHD degrees have led to proven results that can be repeated in the real world or even in a laboratory. I always thought a scientific hypothesis must:

be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

You are right about everything. The methane release is going to kill every human. That has been tested by scientists like you and the results are verified by real world testing and it is an absolute certainty. The sky is falling and sanity has flown the coop... Please Master Togor, please, save the day.

[Mark in Ottawa]

There is a real problem with academic papers in that in many cases, academics must publish papers regularly or be denied tenure and advancement. To enable this, there are a number of publishing houses that will publish anything that is submitted to them as long as the submitters pay the magazine a fee. This has led to a general debasement and mistrust of any paper that is not published by a well-known and reputable organization. When somebody says 300 or 500 or 1000 papers say anything, my immediate response has to be "are these reputable or are they junk". In theory the papers are all supposed to be peer-reviewed but even then, the peers are often all singing from the same prayer book and will never trash someone else's paper if it agrees with their own views.

[togor]

Red your playbook needs updating. You gin up a false exaggerated premise and hang it on your opponent and proceed to attack it. The analogy would be that you put a garbage bag over your own head and then angrily try to punch your way out. It's becoming tired and repetitive, and worse for you, everyone recognizes it for what it is: a diversion.

You're the one playing the expert on climate science, since you know for sure these guys don't know what they're talking about and don't mind saying so. I point out some of the gaps in your argument (eg., NASA never said sea levels dropping) and ask what formal training you have in higher education. You are unwilling to disclose any. Your behavior therefore is not unlike the loudmouth air traveler who is going to tell the pilot how he should fly the plane. Alas the airlines have remedies not available here.