PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: asechrest on October 06, 2018, 07:29:12 AM
-
Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
An interesting read. Doesn't say much for these areas of academia.
-
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
-
The areas of study targeted by the three self-described left leaning liberals, are hardly worthy of being described as scholarly.
They are mostly forms of mental denial and the practice of personal elevation at the expense of reality.
In short, they are pure bullshit on a stale cracker.
-
The real problem is they faked the data. An axiomatic rule in science is we trust each other, we assume we're all reporting honestly. If someone brazenly violates that it can be difficult for a journal to detect it. In my discipline it won't be discovered until someone either confesses or someone else tries to replicate the results.
-
Thanks Steingar. You just admitted what we all suspected about manmade climate change “data.” No one is looking behind the curtain. No wonder “the debate is over.”
-
Thanks Steingar. You just admitted what we all suspected about manmade climate change “data.” No one is looking behind the curtain. No wonder “the debate is over.”
Not only do they change the data, they use assumptions, escalation percentages, etc to get the outcome THEY WANT. You know people do this in the financial world as well with Pro Formas and other analysis. No diferent in science, and academia.
It all about verifying the validity of the data, as well as the validity of the assumptions of what is going to happen in the PROJECTIONS. We now know the "Hockey Stick" graph was a big lie, yet the indoctrinated still believe in it.
-
The real problem is they faked the data. An axiomatic rule in science is we trust each other, we assume we're all reporting honestly. If someone brazenly violates that it can be difficult for a journal to detect it. In my discipline it won't be discovered until someone either confesses or someone else tries to replicate the results.
Isn't data validation part of the point of peer review?
-
Data? One must read the articles properly. These are social studies where everything is empirical, and analytical. There is really no 'data' associated with their gobbledygook. It's all a miasma of verbal diarrhea caught on a page. None of it has any relevance to statistical models, or graphs, or anything.
-
Thanks Steingar. You just admitted what we all suspected about manmade climate change “data.” No one is looking behind the curtain. No wonder “the debate is over.”
The term "Settled Science" should be Kryponite to a legit scholar.
-
The term "Settled Science" should be Kryponite to a legit scholar.
The icing on the cake that it is a fraud is that they keep saying "The science is settled", and the "debate is over". Why make it settled, and disallow debate? They don't want to be revealed as liars, and frauds, that's why. Well that horse has already left the barn.
-
Isn't data validation part of the point of peer review?
Quick note: reviewers can only note inconsistencies within the article or with well established results (which need not result in a recommendation to reject.) There is no way validate data per se, at least not in the sense that would occur during replication of the described experiment or measurements.
I've personally encountered errors in peer reviewed articles I was using to replicate a lab instrument where the circuit diagram didn't match the textual description of the circuit (e.g. resistance or capacitance differs or connections don't match) which are things one would think a reviewer would catch.
Peer review is better than no peer review, but it is not a stamp of authenticity.
-
There are plenty of areas of science where the basic axions are agreed upon by everyone involved. The Genetic code comes to mind, as does the Theory of Electrodynamics. Climatologists feel that anthropogenic climate change deserves the same status. Given what I see with my own eyes I am loathe to doubt them.
The history the debate is amusing. Ten years ago it was "the climate isn't changing" to now its "the climate is changing, but humans have nothing to do with it". It will be interesting to see what happens in another ten years, assuming any of us are around to see it.
-
The history the debate is amusing. Ten years ago it was "the climate isn't changing" to now its "the climate is changing, but humans have nothing to do with it". It will be interesting to see what happens in another ten years, assuming any of us are around to see it.
In the '70's they were predicting the next ice age was upon us and offered scientific "proof" of such. Then a couple of decades later we were warned of "global warming" and how the ice caps were melting, seas were rising and that soon (where we are now) Miami and NYC would be under water.
Then, a few years ago it changed to "climate change" (so it could cover warming and cooling). And of course, it was the human species fault.
Oh, and of course the solution to this epic problem? Well, we'll just tax anyone and everything that is supposedly causing the problem! And for those who need to keep contributing to the problem, we'll set up an elaborate scheme to sell them "carbon credits".
Isn't it amazing those who cry the loudest of the horrors of climate change are those who stand to profit the most from it?
-
It takes a blind academic to pretend that the fake science of mmgw USA anything but a political agenda designed to grab money and power, while reducing personal liberty.
-
There are plenty of areas of science where the basic axions are agreed upon by everyone involved. The Genetic code comes to mind, as does the Theory of Electrodynamics. Climatologists feel that anthropogenic climate change deserves the same status. Given what I see with my own eyes I am loathe to doubt them.
The history the debate is amusing. Ten years ago it was "the climate isn't changing" to now its "the climate is changing, but humans have nothing to do with it". It will be interesting to see what happens in another ten years, assuming any of us are around to see it.
Ectually, the 'climate change' is the movement that keeps pushing the goal posts. First it was environmental science, then 'MMGW', then it was just 'Global Warming' and finally now it's called 'climate change'. Or if you want, anthropogenic climate change. Because - who can argue with 'change'? The great thing is, no matter the results, the alarmists are always right. Get a hurricane = "aha! see - climate change". The MMGW crowd has to keep moving the target because the opponents use far better results to knock down the idiotic crap that is flung out the ass of the MMGW 'scientists'.
Equating anything like MMGW to the study of genetic code, or quantum electrodynamics is idiotic.
-
The history the debate is amusing. Ten years ago it was "the climate isn't changing"
Do you even read your own posts? Man has acknowledged HUGE changes in climate over millennia. Ice ages, great warming/tropical periods. Oceans where land masses are now, glaciers in the U.S. and elsewhere. All this occurred well before Man, and well before Man's industrialization.
When Man Mad Climate Alarmists give up modern conveniences of our industrialized age then I might actually have a LITTLE respect for them. When Al Gore, and Leo DeCaprio stop flying in private jets, and use caravans of SUV's to go to Climate Change conferences, I may take notice. Until then, the entire MMGW crowd can go efff themselves.
-
What a handful of celebrities may or may not do does not change the facts on the ground one iota.
-
What a handful of celebrities may or may not do does not change the facts on the ground one iota.
WTF?
-
What a handful of celebrities may or may not do does not change the facts on the ground one iota.
It was just an example. They are MMGW ACTIVIST celebrities, and hypocrites. Gore made a hundred million, or more from his scam, and carbon credit BS. If you took Man Made Climate Change seriously, you, and your colleagues would be riding bikes to work, not using air conditioning, living a minimalist lifestyle, and you certainly would stop burning the nasty 100LL. So yes, how does it feel being disingenious?
-
What a handful of celebrities may or may not do does not change the facts on the ground one iota.
If this is true, then why are they so adamant to engage in their hypocritical actions? Why do the MMGW crowd seek them out, and endorse their antics in a circle-jerk? Wouldn't the Earth be better off if they practiced what they preach? Is that your goal, to improve the climate by limiting carbon use? How is Al Gore helping the movement by having one of the largest carbon footprints of any human in existence?
-
I have become a believer in climate change/global warming.
Well, actually, I have always believed the climate is changing. It always has and always will. Maybe it is changing faster than normal now, but from what I can tell, periods of change have always been relatively quick, followed by long periods of relative stability in between
But the point is, I don't care if man caused it or not. The only issue is whether we can do anything about it or not.
What I don't believe is that the government can fix it by taxing us or strangling the economy.
Rather than taxing polluters, I think a better solution would be to offer people/industry tax INCENTIVES for coming up with solutions.
-
I have become a believer in climate change/global warming.
Well, actually, I have always believed the climate is changing. It always has and always will. Maybe it is changing faster than normal now, but from what I can tell, periods of change have always been relatively quick, followed by long periods of relative stability in between
But the point is, I don't care if man caused it or not. The only issue is whether we can do anything about it or not.
What I don't believe is that the government can fix it by taxing us or strangling the economy.
Rather than taxing polluters, I think a better solution would be to offer people/industry tax INCENTIVES for coming up with solutions.
But politicians can't get control, and people like OwlGore can't get wealthy if that happens.
-
But politicians can't get control, and people like OwlGore can't get wealthy if that happens.
And there-in lies the problem.
-
And there-in lies the problem.
Exactly, as that is their SOLE motivation.