Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
shull

The Vegan, Plastic & Climate Change Fecking Fanatics

Recommended Posts


I'm not saying the contributors are not qualified. I'm saying that a TV programme by necessity is edited which means context can be lost. One scientist on that programme (I think it was this one) has complained publicly about just that - that his words were taken out of context and important caveats omitted.

"Sexed up" wasn't the best phrase - it wasn't really what I meant. I'm not saying the TV programme is being edited to manipulate an agenda. I'm saying that the edit process itself inevitably and unavoidably forces errors.

A peer reviewed journal doesn't suffer from editing problems and can be published in full.

BTW you are wrong about science not being published unless it agrees with current orthodoxy. Lots of controversial stuff gets published all the time but the things published have to have a solid basis in science.

I'm also not saying the peer reviewed scientific journals process isn't flawless but it is the best we have right now by some considerable margin.

Nothing else comes remotely close.

Double negative here. Are you really saying that peer review is flawless. The process is flawed because the editors of the journals select the "peers"

Possible problems with peer review

Like all human activities, peer review can be subject to biases in certain situations or if insufficient care is taken in the selection of reviewers:

  1. In very competitive areas of sciences, it is possible that reviewers are tempted to gain an unfair advantage when they receive a rival's work for review long before publication, and may even try to scoop the results. A good editor will be aware of the potential for such conflicts and take them into account when making his final judgment on acceptance of a paper.
  2. In the case of competing schools of thought, some reviewers might be influenced by their adherence to a certain point of view and give negative reviews to colleagues from an opposing school of thought. Again, the journal's editor should be able to judge this issue.
  3. If the field of experts for a given topic is small, there is a certain likelihood that the reviewer may have a relationship of animosity, rivalry, or friendship with the author that biases the review process.
  4. The peer-review process doesn't involve replicating experiments or studies in order to test their truth value. The reviews of submitted papers are only to detect glaring errors in methodology and to determine if the work, as it is presented, is suitable for publication. Therefore the process won't detect outright fraud immediately (unless it's blatantly obvious).
  5. In journals lacking real oversight from publishers, editorial board members may be able to publish their own articles by either bypassing the process or hand-picking their own peer reviewers. This created a small scandal in the mathematics community when Chaos, Solitons and Fractals was found to have carried hundreds of articles by its editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie.
  6. The editors of many journals are able to reject papers before they reach the peer review process.[6][7] While this can be a good thing in that it avoids wasting reviewers' time on obvious junk, depending on the rules in place this could lead to the unjustified dismissal of good science.

In all these cases, the responsibility to choose unbiased reviewers and to recognize a biased review rests on the shoulders of the journal's editors. Some journals allow the authors to suggest that certain colleagues not be used as reviewers. In the case of fraud prevention, the peer-review process does not end with publication, as the article or paper remains available for all interested parties to view - if someone tries and fails to replicate the results, or finds that it contradicts research that they have done, then criticisms can be published and investigations made. Even in the face of these possible problems, the peer review process remains the most objective and qualified way to assess scientific work that has ever been developed.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

http://www.labnews.co.uk/features/peer-review/

Edited by smcc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An edited and sexed up TV programme doesn't constitute evidence.

The scientists in that programme need to publish their results in a peer reviewed journal.

I know we all WANT to have an opinion on global warming and its causes but at this stage only trained scientists can possibly have an educated view.

The rest of us, who lack the intellectual tools to know for ourselves, need to know when to pipe down and leave the experts to decide amongst themselves.

There's hordes of people who simply don't have the education to understand this stuff running around like headless chickens screaming to have their viewpoint heard and it's not helping. Both sides of the debate are suffering from these people.

I'm with smcc on this one.

There is a veritable parade of scientists and learned men in that video that produce evidence that , carbon emissions , are not driving climate change and certainly not causing "Global Warming".

Climate change is undeniable . The climate has changed over the centuries and continues to change , now. To site the sun as driving climate change , to me , seems far more rational. The sun is a hugely powerful influence on our daily lives and this was recognised by our forebears to the extent that they worshiped it as a deity.

Nowadays we are aware of phenomena such as the solar wind, solar flares and sun spots and how they can influence the weather.

That wee Danish boffin , that mentioned "greenhouse gases" back in the 70's was only listened to at the time because he was saying that they might save us from another Ice Age. However , governments soon realised that they could use the scenario to control us and make more money out of us and as we saw in the video it is also used to control developing countries. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double negative here. Are you really saying that peer review is flawless. The process is flawed because the editors of the journals select the "peers"

Possible problems with peer review

Like all human activities, peer review can be subject to biases in certain situations or if insufficient care is taken in the selection of reviewers:

  1. In very competitive areas of sciences, it is possible that reviewers are tempted to gain an unfair advantage when they receive a rival's work for review long before publication, and may even try to scoop the results. A good editor will be aware of the potential for such conflicts and take them into account when making his final judgment on acceptance of a paper.
  2. In the case of competing schools of thought, some reviewers might be influenced by their adherence to a certain point of view and give negative reviews to colleagues from an opposing school of thought. Again, the journal's editor should be able to judge this issue.
  3. If the field of experts for a given topic is small, there is a certain likelihood that the reviewer may have a relationship of animosity, rivalry, or friendship with the author that biases the review process.
  4. The peer-review process doesn't involve replicating experiments or studies in order to test their truth value. The reviews of submitted papers are only to detect glaring errors in methodology and to determine if the work, as it is presented, is suitable for publication. Therefore the process won't detect outright fraud immediately (unless it's blatantly obvious).
  5. In journals lacking real oversight from publishers, editorial board members may be able to publish their own articles by either bypassing the process or hand-picking their own peer reviewers. This created a small scandal in the mathematics community when Chaos, Solitons and Fractals was found to have carried hundreds of articles by its editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie.
  6. The editors of many journals are able to reject papers before they reach the peer review process.[6][7] While this can be a good thing in that it avoids wasting reviewers' time on obvious junk, depending on the rules in place this could lead to the unjustified dismissal of good science.

In all these cases, the responsibility to choose unbiased reviewers and to recognize a biased review rests on the shoulders of the journal's editors. Some journals allow the authors to suggest that certain colleagues not be used as reviewers. In the case of fraud prevention, the peer-review process does not end with publication, as the article or paper remains available for all interested parties to view - if someone tries and fails to replicate the results, or finds that it contradicts research that they have done, then criticisms can be published and investigations made. Even in the face of these possible problems, the peer review process remains the most objective and qualified way to assess scientific work that has ever been developed.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

http://www.labnews.co.uk/features/peer-review/

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

And if highly edited TV programmes had the same rigorous process and included an "anti-dumb down" section then it would be possible to directly compare the merits of both routes.

Sadly as we all know, people tend to believe what they read in newspapers and what they see on the TV as gospel and refuse to listen to proper scientific evidence. At least two of you are already mistaking an interview opinion with rigorous scientific evidence and this is the problem.

Science has itself to blame for this, as I said above, because some scientists are engaging in full blown media whoring. This gives away the right to control the agenda - right into the hands of those least likely to be capable of understanding it.

I'll repeat again. I'm not offering an opinion on which side of the debate is correct because I recognise my maths, physics and chemistry isn't remotely close to what's needed to do so.

My point is that the debate is taking place in the wrong forum.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one interesting fact though which TV keeps making a mistake on and needs fixing.

IF the majority of scientists are correct and that global warming is caused by CO2 and man made CO2 contributions have dangerously knocked nature out of balance beyond the tipping point then you can be certain that it's not today's CO2 which is causing the warming we're experiencing now.

Like using a candle to warm a bath, it will take many decades for today's CO2 to have an effect.

This is just basic thermodynamics.

So, bearing the above in mind, if the warming is caused by manmade CO2 then we're suffering from the CO2 placed into the atmosphere by our ancestors at the start of the 1900's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but the continuing production of CO2 is surely the target of the concerns being voiced?

Yes but here's the rub.

One side of full of religious-like zealots who would prefer us to be back in caves wearing sackcloths and eating only cabbage and beans.

The other side is full of religious-like zealots who want us to believe that 10,000 professional scientists are wilfully engaged in a compbined conspiracy to help David Cameron and Barak Obama get more tax out of everyone.

This is the heart of the issue because when attempts are made to produce energy from windfarms which should be applauded for the brilliance of the concept, both sides pipe up and the religious wars, propaganda and peddling of pseudoscience starts.

Talking of windfarms, I'd like to see the problem of storage dealt with by using the excess as an essentially free energy source to convert the CO2, captured from fossil fuel plants, back into petrol again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, bearing the above in mind, if the warming is caused by manmade CO2 then we're suffering from the CO2 placed into the atmosphere by our ancestors at the start of the 1900's.

Agree with this completely.

I'm not persuaded by the idea that scientists are the sole voices we should be listening too. Their work can be far too easily corrupted as we can see in every facet in life where the corporate funders of "research" suddenly find some sort of evidence that backs their bizarre self interest. Government funded research is just as easily corrupted if governments are seeking to use an agenda to raise taxes - for example.

Common sense dictates that the climate will always change. The world went into and then emerged from an Ice Age. We could still be emerging from that Ice Age. We may even reach the point where the world starts going back towards the Ice Age - it may just be a natural cycle of events. If we are worried about polar ice caps melting then why are so many scientists living and camping up there - something which is bound to generate more heat? Stop filming dead polar bears and stay the f**k away from the region and stop setting fires which are bound to melt ice.

If we want to cut CO2 emissions the best way to do it would be to have a massive cull of the world population. If we return the large concrete jungles we have back into vegetation I'm sure we could redress the balance really quickly. Until then though I think I'm with the scientist who is credited with coining the phrase "Global Warming" when he says that the only way to combat rising CO2 levels these days would be to find a man made solution that converts CO2 to Carbon and Oxygen.

Wind farms and wave farms are just silly. It's Alex Salmonds Darian Scheme.

Edited by Stuart Dickson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As interesting as this debate is as someone who is not qualified in any field of science I will avoid the global warming side of this debate.

To return to the point that was intended for discussion I will say YES.

In fact I will be treating the current wife to a meal this very evening and if polar bear is to be found on the menu then I shall order it with a side helping of chips (medium rare, the meat not the chips). As an avid meat eater I will try almost any meat in order to establish if it is to my liking. Here are some meat feasts that I will try if the opportunity arises

Penguin

Lion

Tiger

Leopard (the snow leopard would have to be rare)

Emu

Rhino

Elephant

and so on. Does anyone have any description of what bear actually tastes like? I would wager a shilling or two that the steaks would be lovely and red.

I wonder what dodo tasted like?

It tastes a bit like chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/08/2013 at 11:33 PM, shull said:

You can eat almost anything have seen some things eaten that would make you boke. However if you are hungry i starving you will eat anything tbough maybe not a seagull thy were just too salty :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Enough about your posts, what do you think about all this plastic they've found?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...