Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We prefer to talk about facts rather than throwing cliched metaphors around hoping they'll stick. I know you think you're doing real science. My brother thinks the government is torturing him with electromagnetic waves.now turn the channel back to reality and how it is really done. walking with your eyes closed resolves nothing. But it is preferred by you and your peer team.You're just spouting bullshit out your ignorant ass.oh sure they do. They must comply to the group, not to the facts and why it's the good ole boys club.Peer review is pretty important to real scientists. Hacks, liars, and shills seem to not need it though. And "good ole boys" clubs don't have merit based membership requirements.do you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?
back to the OP:
credit NASA:
World of Change Collapse of the Larsen-B Ice Shelf Feature Articles
2002 --abstract:
"In the Southern Hemisphere summer of 2002, scientists monitoring daily satellite images of the Antarctic Peninsula watched in amazement as almost the entire Larsen B Ice Shelf splintered and collapsed in just over one month. They had never witnessed such a large area—3,250 square kilometers, or 1,250 square miles—disintegrate so rapidly."
org man, where is the back pressure run out?
After the 2002 Larsen B collapse, the glaciers behind the collapsed part of the shelf accelerated as much as eightfold -- comparable to a car accelerating from 55 to 440 mph.
My holy fuck you're a moronwell at least the cruise ships won't get stuck on that reef off the shore of Bermuda anymore!
huh? did you miss that about the Norwegian cruise ship? dude, seems like that phrase falls on you!!!My holy fuck you're a moronwell at least the cruise ships won't get stuck on that reef off the shore of Bermuda anymore!
nope, I don't submit docs since it isn't my field. I don't play baseball, football, basketball or hockey and yet I know the rules and can follow along. One doesn't need to belong to analyze and review. funny how you all can't grasp that.I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLI asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Have you ever been through the peer review? Ever? Of course you haven't. I have. So stop yer sniveling lies, you pos.
Although I understand your limitations.
I have to agree with that. The amazing thing about this Environment forum is that some (you know who you are) come up with crap they make up, and shout it with such a force of conviction that it makes it difficult to have a reasonable dialog.He made it up.
That sort of behavior is so prevalent in conservative circles that Stephen Colbert gave it a name, truthiness.
a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
hahahahahahahahahaha go read my last post. bazinga!!!That is so absolutely not true. Where did you get "papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge"? Did you just make that up? Read it in a blog?I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.
He made it up.
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
I have no desire to. so no problem for me.No, you do not write for journals, nor will you ever.
why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLI asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
funny thing reality isn't it? You have to suffer through it. want my money prove your theory. How many times would you like me to say that?why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOL
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
I don't either. I have never been paid for any of my peer reviewed work, though I have been paid as a consultant for all of my reports. You? The point is that you don't have a point of reference, and no expertise or experience on the matter. Don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing as some one claiming to be in the know on a subject and then proving your ignorance to everyone else. It is painful to watch.
funny thing reality isn't it? You have to suffer through it. want my money prove your theory. How many times would you like me to say that?why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
I don't either. I have never been paid for any of my peer reviewed work, though I have been paid as a consultant for all of my reports. You? The point is that you don't have a point of reference, and no expertise or experience on the matter. Don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing as some one claiming to be in the know on a subject and then proving your ignorance to everyone else. It is painful to watch.
Oh, and if you truly believe your bs, then stop driving and move out of your house and take no more trips on planes and trains. limit yourself to meat you raise and crops you grow. start by making an example that you indeed believe your own shit.
why do you recycle? You don't buy product from a store do you? It's all man made evil shit. aren't you afraid you'll melt?funny thing reality isn't it? You have to suffer through it. want my money prove your theory. How many times would you like me to say that?why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
I don't either. I have never been paid for any of my peer reviewed work, though I have been paid as a consultant for all of my reports. You? The point is that you don't have a point of reference, and no expertise or experience on the matter. Don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing as some one claiming to be in the know on a subject and then proving your ignorance to everyone else. It is painful to watch.
Oh, and if you truly believe your bs, then stop driving and move out of your house and take no more trips on planes and trains. limit yourself to meat you raise and crops you grow. start by making an example that you indeed believe your own shit.
Erm, what? Haven't flown in years. I put about 5,000 miles/year on my car. I recycle, use only high efficiency light bulbs, and keep my thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer. You?
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
high efficiency light bulbs are hazardous to our health, why would I use them. I have a smart thermostat, I don't touch it after it's programmed. I use grid electric, you?funny thing reality isn't it? You have to suffer through it. want my money prove your theory. How many times would you like me to say that?why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
I don't either. I have never been paid for any of my peer reviewed work, though I have been paid as a consultant for all of my reports. You? The point is that you don't have a point of reference, and no expertise or experience on the matter. Don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing as some one claiming to be in the know on a subject and then proving your ignorance to everyone else. It is painful to watch.
Oh, and if you truly believe your bs, then stop driving and move out of your house and take no more trips on planes and trains. limit yourself to meat you raise and crops you grow. start by making an example that you indeed believe your own shit.
Erm, what? Haven't flown in years. I put about 5,000 miles/year on my car. I recycle, use only high efficiency light bulbs, and keep my thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer. You?
why do you recycle? You don't buy product from a store do you? It's all man made evil shit. aren't you afraid you'll melt?funny thing reality isn't it? You have to suffer through it. want my money prove your theory. How many times would you like me to say that?why would he or I have to? Just curious. I don't write articles or journals for money. not clear what your point is other than you have no point.I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
I don't either. I have never been paid for any of my peer reviewed work, though I have been paid as a consultant for all of my reports. You? The point is that you don't have a point of reference, and no expertise or experience on the matter. Don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing as some one claiming to be in the know on a subject and then proving your ignorance to everyone else. It is painful to watch.
Oh, and if you truly believe your bs, then stop driving and move out of your house and take no more trips on planes and trains. limit yourself to meat you raise and crops you grow. start by making an example that you indeed believe your own shit.
Erm, what? Haven't flown in years. I put about 5,000 miles/year on my car. I recycle, use only high efficiency light bulbs, and keep my thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer. You?
Do you poop in a toilet or do you use your yard? do you wipe with paper or leaf?
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLI asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever gone through the scientific peer review process? Of course you haven't. Next.
Your theory that we have to do something to know about it would means nobody would know that drinking poison is a bad idea.
