[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

For example...

Suppose a generally biased blog gives it's interpretation of what is in a scientific study. Do you expect the same sort of objectivity you would hopefully see in the original source?

It's a slow day, so OK, I'll play.

Science doesn't come from biased blogs. It comes from scientists who use a rigorous process to ensure that any personal bias is removed from the final conclusions to ensure predictability and reproducability from the experiment or data. These experiments or conclusions, once verified by peers, is published in journals so that all can verify that what is drawn in the conclusion is backed up by the data or experiment.

Re-interpreting the study is the opposite of science. Biased blogs are never peer reviewed or published in journals. 'Biased' blogs by definition are not 'objective'.

In an unbiased blog, they would reproduce the experiment in the paper and if their peer reviewed conclusions didn't match the first experiment, then they would publish their findings and the first paper might be subject to review to find out why the two don't match, or recall entirely (example: mercury in vaccines cause autism - recalled). An unbiased blog would then show the same unbiased process as the original experiment.

[N_Fiddledog]

Good, I'm glad you'll play with me. Ok, here's another one.

What would an objective guy like yourself think of those science by press release things?

For example there was this recent one where they were talking about a recent study on the West Antarctic glacial melt.

Now in the press release you're left with the impression 3 metres of inevitable sea rise is on the way.

Once all the pertinent information had been sorted out weeks later though we average types learned they weren't actually talking about sea rise, but potential rise in the rate of melt, and that was only the thickness of half a fingernail.

And they didn't mention the possibility - some might say probability - that this tiny increase in rate could have been caused by natural factors such as volcanoes or tropical currents. Something we also discovered later.

Surely you do not condone such tricks of rhetoric. Shall I look through the current events section here to see if I can find the original?

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Good, I'm glad you'll play with me. Ok, here's another one.

What would an objective guy like yourself think of those science by press release things?

I take them for exactly what they are. Press releases. I know where science journals are published, and I know that news reporters know little about science. I also know where they keep reporters that know things about science, as opposed to the staff ones that report on science when they aren't writing clickbait advertisements for companies that look like news articles.

Which is why I didn't fall for your article today.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=84956

[N_Fiddledog]

Fall for it? How might one fall for something posted in the category of "Funny". You mean you didn't laugh? I'm sorry to hear that. I laughed my ass off.

[DrCaleb]

I laughed, hence the winkie face. Not a belly laugh, but at the absurdity of it. I just know that someone, somewhere is going to use that crap as proof that global warming is false.

[raydan]

I'd really love it if the debate was over... I'm sick of hearing you guys rehashing the same f**king arguments over and over and over again for the past 5 years now, maybe even 10.

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

sandorski sandorski:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually it's no "statistically significant" warming.

There seems to be different ways to say what that means to make it sound bad or good depending on what you believe, but the way I understand it, it means there's not enough warming, if any, to know for sure if there is no warming or maybe some small amount of warming.

Look it up. It's a tricky concept. But it's a math thing, and it's generally agreed upon as existing, even by your guys.

You should heed your own advice.

I knew what it was. You didn't. Which one of us needs to look it up?

Oh and congratulations on your lengthy posts lately. In my mind I used to call you "Three word Sandra". Now if we could just get you to somehow post some actual information. I guess first we'll have to show you how to find some. In other words, "look it up".

Sorry dude. You have been consistently wrong on this issue from as far back as I remember. It is you, not I, that needs to heed your advice.

[sandorski]

raydan raydan:

I'd really love it if the debate was over... I'm sick of hearing you guys rehashing the same f**king arguments over and over and over again for the past 5 years now, maybe even 10.

15-20 would be more accurate, possibly longer.

[PluggyRug]

If 20% do not think the debate is over, then the other 80% must be really thick.

[fifeboy]

$1:

"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Why can't we debate this? It's more fun and at the rapture the anti evos get to point and laugh.

[DrCaleb]

raydan raydan:

I'd really love it if the debate was over... I'm sick of hearing you guys rehashing the same f**king arguments over and over and over again for the past 5 years now, maybe even 10.

The science debate was over some time ago. Unfortunately it's a political debate now. (and we all know how those go)

[Zipperfish]

raydan raydan:

I'd really love it if the debate was over... I'm sick of hearing you guys rehashing the same f**king arguments over and over and over again for the past 5 years now, maybe even 10.

Hey, that's why we're here! The definition of this site could be "rehashing the same f**king arguments over an dover again."

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I laughed, hence the winkie face. Not a belly laugh, but at the absurdity of it. I just know that someone, somewhere is going to use that crap as proof that global warming is false.

To me the proof that global warming is false is the fact that its supporters act like fundamentalist moslems when they demand that non-believers be imprisoned for daring to speak against orthodoxy.

In my lifetime of experience when I ask a question and get a violent response then that means I'm asking the right question.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I laughed, hence the winkie face. Not a belly laugh, but at the absurdity of it. I just know that someone, somewhere is going to use that crap as proof that global warming is false.

To me the proof that global warming is false is the fact that its supporters act like fundamentalist moslems when they demand that non-believers be imprisoned for daring to speak against orthodoxy.

In my lifetime of experience when I ask a question and get a violent response then that means I'm asking the right question.

Ah yes, that's what we're all doing.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

Ah yes, that's what we're all doing.

Fail.