Exploding the myths of climate scepticism

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Peer review is one form of oversight, definitely. On other threads you have praised the system highly - but for some reason now seem to have turned against it.

But as anyone who has ever attended a university can tell you - there are multiple forms of oversight, not only to ensure that there is no plagiarism and so forth, but also to ensure academic standards are maintained. An academic working on a PhD has a supervisor, but also presents their work every three months or so to a multi-disciplinary committee who analyse and critique the work to ensure standards and objectivity are maintained. The PhD also goes through a defense, in which the opponent must come from an external facility, to ensure the same objectivity and lack of bias.

It's an excellent system, and in use right around the world.

What this proves, again, is that your constant claims that funding is corrupt simply make no logical sense. The system is designed to prevent fraud and political interference, and very obviously does just that. It comes very close to being fool-proof, actually.

 

[texasbadger]

Texas Badger -

While I agree that Communism around the world is in decline - I can't imagine what that has to do with climate change. Glaciers do not melt or not melt depending on somones political views.

It's worth keeping in mind that, aside from the GOP, ever major conservative political party on earth is up to speed with climate change, as are all major automotive and oil companies. Add to that list every major scientific body - the science really is that overwhelming.

Unless you think oil companies have fallen prey to some socialist conspiracy, I can't see any logic in your theory.

While the label "Communism" is on the decline, the extreme leftist agenda - bringing down Free Enterprise Capitalism and the major western powers - is not. We need look no further than the White House for that. What does that have to do with climate change? The perceived solution to that trumped up problem hurts our economy and drags down our standard of living so much that it would effectively achieve that Communist goal.

The Greenland icepack is in fact increasing in mass, not decreasing. Ocean temperatures the last decade or so have turned back downward. True, any increase or decrease is not because of anyone's political views, but it is also not because of manmade causes.

The auto and oil companies? Their success or failure depends on public relations. Of course they are gonna give lip service to something as cherished by the leftist mainstream media as GW/climate change.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Peer review is one form of oversight, definitely. On other threads you have praised the system highly - but for some reason now seem to have turned against it.

More lies. It seems that you are physically unable to stop lying. That says a great deal about your character. I have never praised the peer review system or any part of it.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I have never praised the peer review system or any part of it.

None of them are peer reviewed. This one may or may not be peer reviewed,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/277601-arctic-vs-antarctic-ice.html#post6790655

And yet here you are complaining that a source is not peer-reviewed.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I have never praised the peer review system or any part of it.

None of them are peer reviewed. This one may or may not be peer reviewed,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/277601-arctic-vs-antarctic-ice.html#post6790655

And yet here you are complaining that a source is not peer-reviewed.

You just can't stop lying for anything, can you. I pointed out that what you presented as science was not. It was blog entries and self published opinions on the output of computer models.

Do you come from a family of liars or perhaps from a family of achievers, one of which you are not which prompts you to lie about everyting? There is a psychology to liars and lying...wonder what secret scar(s) make you lie so prodigiously?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Peer review is one form of oversight, definitely. On other threads you have praised the system highly - but for some reason now seem to have turned against it.

Peer review isn't financial oversight. If you think it is, then you know even less about economics than I thought.