I do when the field of astrology is confirmed by peer reviewed studies. It never will be, but still.

Niiiiice

---

I do when the field of astrology is confirmed by peer reviewed studies. It never will be, but still. 

 

Do you understand what peer review means? It would mean that astrologers, and only astrologers, were reviewing each other.


 

They don't send climate papers to physicists to review, they send them to their co-religionists.


 

If you are willing to expand the question of global warming to scientists outside the realm of climastrology, then there are 31,000+ non climatrologers who agree that it is a non-problem.


 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Do you understand what peer review means? It would mean that astrologers, and only astrologers, were reviewing each other.


 
They don't send climate papers to physicists to review, they send them to their co-religionists.


 
If you are willing to expand the question of global warming to scientists outside the realm of climastrology, then there are 31,000+ non climatrologers who agree that it is a non-problem.


 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm'>http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm</a>

Lol

---

Do you understand what peer review means? It would mean that astrologers, and only astrologers, were reviewing each other.


 

They don't send climate papers to physicists to review, they send them to their co-religionists.


 

If you are willing to expand the question of global warming to scientists outside the realm of climastrology, then there are 31,000+ non climatrologers who agree that it is a non-problem.


 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

You do realize that I could sign that petition, despite the fact that I don't have a P.H.D. right?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Do you understand what peer review means? It would mean that astrologers, and only astrologers, were reviewing each other.


 

They don't send climate papers to physicists to review, they send them to their co-religionists.


 

If you are willing to expand the question of global warming to scientists outside the realm of climastrology, then there are 31,000+ non climatrologers who agree that it is a non-problem.


 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

31,000 people in the entire scientific community. Even assuming those are all real and all scientists, that's still a tiny amount. Also, your understanding of peer review and its place in the scientific process is flawed.

---

You do realize that I could sign that petition, despite the fact that I don't have a P.H.D. right?

 

Yes, that is true of most petitions. Frequently you'll find 'Mickey Mouse' on the list. But just because 'Mickey Mouse' is one of the signers of a petition doesn't mean that there aren't any real signers.


 

The petition organization validated the signatures. The 31,000 number is the number of validated signatures. More than half are PhDs, but not all. One can be a scientist without a PhD.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

31,000 people in the entire scientific community. Even assuming those are all real and all scientists, that's still a tiny amount. Also, your understanding of peer review and its place in the scientific process is flawed.

 

31,000 people is a significant result. These are just the ones who were willing to take the time to sign the petition. When the media quotes the 97% consensus number, do you know how many 'scientists' that was from? It was 75 of 77, and limited to the true believers. The questionaire started out asking 10,000 scientists their opinions and then the researchers culled it down to 77 to get the answer they wanted. This is what climastrology is.


 

Flawed? I've been part of the peer review process. Most of the peer review criticisms are that so-and-so paper was not listed as one of the references. Peer reviewers do not check the science unless there is some blatant error. They never check the math.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

31,000 people is a significant result. These are just the ones who were willing to take the time to sign the petition. When the media quotes the 97% consensus number, do you know how many 'scientists' that was from? It was 75 of 77, and limited to the true believers. The questionaire started out asking 10,000 scientists their opinions and then the researchers culled it down to 77 to get the answer they wanted. This is what climastrology is.


 

Flawed? I've been part of the peer review process. Most of the peer review criticisms are that so-and-so paper was not listed as one of the references. Peer reviewers do not check the science unless there is some blatant error. They never check the math.

Again, I could go to that site and sign that petition, and I am not a scientist.  I did amazing in High School biology, but did poor at the college level.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Again, I could go to that site and sign that petition, and I am not a scientist.  I did amazing in High School biology, but did poor at the college level.  

 

And their validation process would eventually exclude you, or at least not count you as a 'scientist.' You did read the post where I mentioned that over half were verified PhD scientists?


 

But go ahead. Find me a petition from verified scientists stating that global warming is a problem. Find me one with even 1/4 the number of names on the Oregon petition.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

And their validation process would eventually exclude you, or at least not count you as a 'scientist.' You did read the post where I mentioned that over half were verified PhD scientists?


But go ahead. Find me a petition from verified scientists stating that global warming is a problem. Find me one with even 1/4 the number of names on the Oregon petition.

You don't need a petition when the vast majority of the scientific community thinks climate change is real.


And having a PhD doesn't make you more qualified to talk about subjects outside your own field of study.

---

And their validation process would eventually exclude you, or at least not count you as a 'scientist.' You did read the post where I mentioned that over half were verified PhD scientists?


 

But go ahead. Find me a petition from verified scientists stating that global warming is a problem. Find me one with even 1/4 the number of names on the Oregon petition.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-w...propaganda

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-w...propaganda

 

The blog of a propaganda expert? You should be more skeptical. These are the same people who posted some Heartland E-mails that were obtained by fraud by Dr. Peter Gleick, along with a fake E-mail that he made since the ones he stole didn't put Heartland in a bad light. To restate that, they posted a lie. These bloggers then circled the wagons around the thief Gleick, as did many of the most vocal climastrologers. These are the people you're in bed with.


 

Now let's actually read the criticism. They found about ten people who's name begins with 'A' for whom they couldn't find scientific credentials? That's only ten out of (say) 1000 of the 31,000 who's names begin with 'A.' That leaves (say) 990 of the 'A' names that didn't fit their agenda. Pretty pathetic argument.


 

And their other big argument is that very few of the signers are climate 'scientists.' That goes back to my point that if you only limit the field to the faithful, astrology would be considered a valid science.


 

For DF, how do you know that the vast majority of the scientific community thinks climate change is real? Where is the survey? (and by 'climate change is real,' do you you mean that significant climate change is caused by CO2 and it is a severe problem?) Otherwise, I also agree that climate change is real. The climate is usually changing. It was warmer when the Vikings farmed in Greenland, and much colder in the 17th century. In the last million years the planet has experienced long periods of glaciation between short warm periods, of which this is one.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The blog of a propaganda expert? You should be more skeptical. These are the same people who posted some Heartland E-mails that were obtained by fraud by Dr. Peter Gleick, along with a fake E-mail that he made since the ones he stole didn't put Heartland in a bad light. To restate that, they posted a lie. These bloggers then circled the wagons around the thief Gleick, as did many of the most vocal climastrologers. These are the people you're in bed with.


 

Now let's actually read the criticism. They found about ten people who's name begins with 'A' for whom they couldn't find scientific credentials? That's only ten out of (say) 1000 of the 31,000 who's names begin with 'A.' That leaves (say) 990 of the 'A' names that didn't fit their agenda. Pretty pathetic argument.


 

And their other big argument is that very few of the signers are climate 'scientists.' That goes back to my point that if you only limit the field to the faithful, astrology would be considered a valid science.


 

For DF, how do you know that the vast majority of the scientific community thinks climate change is real? Where is the survey? (and by 'climate change is real,' do you you mean that significant climate change is caused by CO2 and it is a severe problem?) Otherwise, I also agree that climate change is real. The climate is usually changing. It was warmer when the Vikings farmed in Greenland, and much colder in the 17th century. In the last million years the planet has experienced long periods of glaciation between short warm periods, of which this is one.

 

And you're in bed with Exxon Mobile, who clearly has no reasons to lie about anything.  I mean a big corporation like that, surely they're honest angels.  


They just named ten, that doesn't mean that they were the only ones they could find.  Many of the petition signers are veterinarians, and other medical experts who don't work in the field of science at all.  Don't take their word for it though, LOOK INTO IT YOURSELF!  How about that?  


 

 

In 2001, <i>Scientific American</i> took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

<blockquote>
Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.^[25]

</blockquote>
 

And your argument about astrology is absolutely ridiculous.  If you get cancer, are you going to go see an Oncologist?  I mean if you ask just Witch Doctors, they'd be considered a valid medical organization.


Also, the NAS (whom the petition makers seemed to have reason to try to mislead others into thinking the report was from, so I'm guessing their opinion is at least somewhat valid) criticized the lack of climatologists, and suggested that the report was written to mislead people into signing it.  But I'm sure the NAS lacks credibility.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And you're in bed with Exxon Mobile, who clearly has no reasons to lie about anything.  I mean a big corporation like that, surely they're honest angels.  


They just named ten, that doesn't mean that they were the only ones they could find.  Many of the petition signers are veterinarians, and other medical experts who don't work in the field of science at all.  Don't take their word for it though, LOOK INTO IT YOURSELF!  How about that?  


 

 

And your argument about astrology is absolutely ridiculous.  If you get cancer, are you going to go see an Oncologist?  I mean if you ask just Witch Doctors, they'd be considered a valid medical organization.


Also, the NAS (whom the petition makers seemed to have reason to try to mislead others into thinking the report was from, so I'm guessing their opinion is at least somewhat valid) criticized the lack of climatologists, and suggested that the report was written to mislead people into signing it.  But I'm sure the NAS lacks credibility.

 

Exxon Mobile has donated more money to the alarmists than they have to the skeptics. The CO2 hate is really not a problem for the oil companies. There is no non-CO2 alternative to oil. And I've never referenced an Exxon Mobile web site like you did the Gleick-cronies.


 

They named just ten because they found just ten. Don't you understand that they would list every single 'A' name if it supported their agenda? Don't be so gullible.


 

How is my astrologer comparison ridiculous? If you limit the question to just one group who has a vested interest in the answer, that is meaningless. Ask if Mohammed is a prophet ... but only allow Imams to answer. No others are qualified. That's exactly the argument that's been put forth to claiming non-climastrologers opinions don't matter.


 

In any large organization the politicians rise to the leadership positions. NAS is no different. When you say 'NAS says' what you are saying is 'the NAS politicians say.'  NAS has never actually polled their membership, in fact they refused a request by a large contigent of members to do so. Hmmm, maybe they were afraid the results might not turn out the way they wanted.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Exxon Mobile has donated more money to the alarmists than they have to the skeptics. The CO2 hate is really not a problem for the oil companies. There is no non-CO2 alternative to oil. And I've never referenced an Exxon Mobile web site like you did the Gleick-cronies.


 

They named just ten because they found just ten. Don't you understand that they would list every single 'A' name if it supported their agenda? Don't be so gullible.


 

How is my astrologer comparison ridiculous? If you limit the question to just one group who has a vested interest in the answer, that is meaningless. Ask if Mohammed is a prophet ... but only allow Imams to answer. No others are qualified. That's exactly the argument that's been put forth to claiming non-climastrologers opinions don't matter.


 

In any large organization the politicians rise to the leadership positions. NAS is no different. When you say 'NAS says' what you are saying is 'the NAS politicians say.'  NAS has never actually polled their membership, in fact they refused a request by a large contigent of members to do so. Hmmm, maybe they were afraid the results might not turn out the way they wanted.

Except Exxon funded that petition you posted.  So there is that.


If I'm naive, then you're gullible.  You won't even look for yourself to see if the names on the list are credible or not.  You'll just take their word for it.  Probably because they agree with you.  If they disagreed, I'm sure you'd dig something up on them.


Your astrology comparison is still terrible.  It's be like polling 30,000 people on cancer treatments, and only asking a few oncologists, while mostly asking veterinarians, dentists, and plastic surgeons.



 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Keep debating guys.  My investment portfolio from AlGore Inc. just came in the mail.  The future's so bright, I gotta.. B)

---

Except Exxon funded that petition you posted.  So there is that.


If I'm naive, then you're gullible.  You won't even look for yourself to see if the names on the list are credible or not.  You'll just take their word for it.  Probably because they agree with you.  If they disagreed, I'm sure you'd dig something up on them.


Your astrology comparison is still terrible.  It's be like polling 30,000 people on cancer treatments, and only asking a few oncologists, while mostly asking veterinarians, dentists, and plastic surgeons.



 

 

From the petition page:


 

 

 

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

 

So no, Exxon Mobile didn't fund the Oregon Petition.


 

I have scanned the names on the list and found several PhD's who I know or know of. I take the petition claims as credible because they could easily be refuted by the opposition if they weren't true. So far all we have is about 1% of the names that the believers couldn't verify. So maybe the actual number of valid signers is only 30,690? If that's all that the believers are hanging on to, then they should crawl back under the rock they emerged from. The scientific American study you referenced did not refute the validity claims either, and surprisingly found that half the climate scientists listed still admitted to agreeing with the petition. I would have thought that number much smaller considering the career risk of taking a position which would reduce funding. (and nice job using Wikipedia as a source, Wikipedia is useless for anything controversial)


 

Climastrology is not medicine. Oncologists have a track record of curing patients, while climastrologers have failed miserably in their predictions. And whether or not a scientist is an expert in a field, he can still recognize scientific malpractice. My analogy is more akin to having those veterinarians, dentists, and plastic surgeons signing a petition that opposed beheading as the approved method of curing cancer.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bia...SocialFlow

 

<p style="font-family:'pt-serif', Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(46,46,47);background-color:rgb(251,251,251);">"A forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, describes this problem in detail.

<p style="font-family:'pt-serif', Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(46,46,47);background-color:rgb(251,251,251);"> 

<p style="font-family:'pt-serif', Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(46,46,47);background-color:rgb(251,251,251);">The article, whose lead author is New York University’s Jonathan Haidt, finds that academic psychology has lost nearly all of its political diversity in the last 50 years and that the validity of the discipline has been “undermined” as a result.

<p style="font-family:'pt-serif', Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(46,46,47);background-color:rgb(251,251,251);"> 

<p style="font-family:'pt-serif', Georgia, serif;font-size:16px;color:rgb(46,46,47);background-color:rgb(251,251,251);">And while the authors note that greater political diversity would improve things, nonliberals face a “hostile climate and discrimination.”

 

 

 

 

But, hey, keep on ordering your life based on what the "experts and researchers" say. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow'>http://nypost.com/2014/10/12/liberal-bias-in-academia-is-destroying-the-integrity-of-research/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow</a>
<span style="background-color:rgb(251,251,251);">

"A forthcoming article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, published by Cambridge University Press, describes this problem in detail.</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(251,251,251);">

The article, whose lead author is New York University’s Jonathan Haidt, finds that academic psychology has lost nearly all of its political diversity in the last 50 years and that the validity of the discipline has been “undermined” as a result.</span>
<span style="background-color:rgb(251,251,251);">

And while the authors note that greater political diversity would improve things, nonliberals face a “hostile climate and discrimination.”</span>





But, hey, keep on ordering your life based on what the "experts and researchers" say.

Say what now?

---

Say what now?

It turns out that when all your peers are liberals then your peer reviewed research turns out with liberal bias. Who'da thunk? Besides anyone with a functioning brain I mean.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato