Originally posted by @metal-brainThat is the same as asking me to prove my 'negative' that the recent global warming is not mostly natural and, according to your own idiotic logic, that is an 'unreasonable' request.
I'm asking you to prove your positive that global warming is mostly man made..
I am using your own stupid logic against you.
Originally posted by @metal-brainHow many of Singer's peer reviewed articles did you read?
From the link below:
Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editor ...[text shortened]... making a feeble effort to imply he has not written many peer reviewed articles. Another failure!
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI don't know. I don't keep count. Do you do a tally count of every article you read?
How many of Singer's peer reviewed articles did [b]you read?[/b]
I would like to read at least one of your peer reviewed articles. Is one or more available online?
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou do know and it's zero, stop pretending otherwise.
I don't know. I don't keep count. Do you do a tally count of every article you read?
I would like to read at least one of your peer reviewed articles. Is one or more available online?
In any case, there is a consensus among climate scientists that mankind is significantly contributing to climate change, Singer or no Singer.
All of my articles are available in preprint form at arxiv.org.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWildgrass knows I have read peer reviewed articles that he posted in our debates here on the science forum. Telling me it is zero was very foolish of you. Did you ever even think of the odds of zero being true before posting such an embarrassing assertion?
You do know and it's zero, stop pretending otherwise.
In any case, there is a consensus among climate scientists that mankind is significantly contributing to climate change, Singer or no Singer.
All of my articles are available in preprint form at arxiv.org.
Peer review isn't everything you are making it out to be either. In fact, there is another article by Fred Singer about that too. Keep in mind this was written by the guy that wrote over 200 peer reviewed articles himself.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
Originally posted by @metal-brainPeer review is a tool for filtering out the worse of the crap (false or erroneous claims either pretending to be or erroneously thought to be 'scientific' ) from the real science. It isn't fool proof and sometimes the crap sneaks through that filter, but it really does help to filter out much of the worst of the crap and is certainly vastly better than nothing.
Peer review isn't everything you are making it out to be either.
If a claimed 'scientific' finding isn't either ever put through peer review or is put through peer review but appears to fail peer review then it is usually just crap i.e. not real science.
A scientific claim should always eventually be put through peer review to help give it some basic legitimacy as being claimed to be scientific.
I certainly plan to eventually put my findings of my current research through peer review just like I SHOULD do; if my findings are scientific and valid, why shouldn't I? And why wouldn't I won't to? I would have no legitimate reason not to.
You cannot validly completely rubbish the concept of peer review.
1 edit
Originally posted by @humyI'm fine with peer review. So is Singer. He published over 200 peer reviewed articles.
Peer review is a tool for filtering out the worse of the crap (false or erroneous claims either pretending to be or erroneously thought to be 'scientific' ) from the real science. It isn't fool proof and sometimes the crap sneaks through that filter, but it really does help to filter out much of the worst of the crap and is certainly vastly better than nothin ...[text shortened]... no legitimate reason not to.
You cannot validly completely rubbish the concept of peer review.
Why are we still talking about this again?
Edit: Oh yeah, You and Kazet are making a big deal over peer review about nothing.
Originally posted by @metal-brainHe must have failed them all; the scientific rebuts caming thick and fast; Proof that peer review does help to weed out the crap.
I'm fine with peer review. So is Singer. He published over 200 peer reviewed articles.
You and Kazet are making a big deal over peer review about nothing.
So first you imply his work is shown to be good because you say it was peer reviewed many times and now you imply that peer review has little value; I am guessing you say the latter because you fear the scientific rebuts that would inevitably came from any peer reviews that may have took place.
Originally posted by @humyFuture findings or all?
Peer review is a tool for filtering out the worse of the crap (false or erroneous claims either pretending to be or erroneously thought to be 'scientific' ) from the real science. It isn't fool proof and sometimes the crap sneaks through that filter, but it really does help to filter out much of the worst of the crap and is certainly vastly better than nothin ...[text shortened]... no legitimate reason not to.
You cannot validly completely rubbish the concept of peer review.
You talk a moderately good game, although it's likely just that: a game you'd like to play.
How about you post links to your peer-reviewed work?
And don't give the generic website as KN did; post the actual paper(s) you worked on.
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhat about YOUR peer-reviewed work, since you have already said you have a civilization changing mind of incredible power, there should be a lot of peer-reviewed papers you have personally written.
Future findings or all?
You talk a moderately good game, although it's likely just that: a game you'd like to play.
How about you post links to your peer-reviewed work?
And don't give the generic website as KN did; post the actual paper(s) you worked on.
Originally posted by @metal-brainI'm not making a "big deal" out of it. I said that if you want to criticize the scientific consensus, you should seek to find flaws in the scientific literature, not television programs.
I'm fine with peer review. So is Singer. He published over 200 peer reviewed articles.
Why are we still talking about this again?
Edit: Oh yeah, You and Kazet are making a big deal over peer review about nothing.
5 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhYou do comprehend that findings have to be made and analyzed BEFORE they are peer reviewed, right? That is just a matter of logic.
How about you post links to your peer-reviewed work?
I have already made some significant findings but I haven't released any of my findings yet because more work needs to be done first but, when I do, they will THEN be put through peer review, obviously.
One generally has to do the research until reaching some sort of stoppable point before publishing results and its not good publishing prematurely.
For example, one of the things I am currently working on is incorporating my new branch of mathematics I created into AI because that is what it is especially made for. But that will take many MONTHS if not over a year to program that in and test all the massive programs. How can I publish my results from testing those programs before I have even made them? Obviously, I need to wait until I done it and all the results are in.
Originally posted by @humyThat's a lot of letters when four would have sufficed.
You do comprehend that findings have to be made and analyzed BEFORE they are peer reviewed, right? That is just a matter of logic.
I have already made some significant findings but I haven't released any of my findings yet because more work needs to be done first but, when I do, they will THEN be put through peer review, obviously.
One generally has to do th ...[text shortened]... ore I have even made them? Obviously, I need to wait until I done it and all the results are in.
The answer is ZERO.