UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
go spit in a black dude's food, ginwilly.
from what i understand from doctors, the black person's body will reject it if it's a legitimate spit.
Out of 2,258 published peer reviewed articles on climate change...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
from what i understand from doctors, the black person's body will reject it if it's a legitimate spit.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
have you compared any civil rights leaders to KKK grand wizards lately?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
We have always produced more co2 than we can absorb. The first "pollutant" to cause a near world wide die off was oxygen. The only survivors of that mass extinction are a few anaerobic bacteria.
You maybe the only one onto something here...
Doer
Well-Known Member
If science was conducted solely by counting of peer reviewed articles, that seem to agree to a layman, we would be lost and have no science, at all.
Peer review is the very beginning and even that doesn't work any more. Too much literature. Too much corralling of thought under Govt grants or not. Too much money at stake. The flim/flam never stops. We are flim/flam monkeys with money.
Science + Politics = Power. It doesn't have to be good science. And it does not have to be in good journals, that the "peer review" was published. You make a silly journal and you call it, Environmental Systems or something..as if. Your job is to publish agenda junk. Why? To get agenda junk ADVERTIZING.
So, in science, we go by repeatable experiments, only. There have been so many failures of peer review, it is not even funny.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job.
--------------
http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/80/
L. A. V. Carvalho, On some contradictory computations in multi-dimensional mathematics, Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005), 725-734, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2005.02.074. [See http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0603599 for severe criticism, but the paper has not been retracted.]
Rohollah Mosallahnezhad, Cooperative, compact algorithms for randomized algorithms, accepted by Applied Mathematics and Computation in 2007 and formatted/copy-edited but withdrawn after publicity, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011 and http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/sharif_paper.pdf. [In this unbelievable case, computer-generated nonsense was accepted for publication. See http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/blog/index.php?entry=entry070626-110103.]
M. Sivasubramanian, New parallel theory, Applied Mathematics Letters 23 (2010), 1137-1139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2010.05.003. [See http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/faked-data-unsubstantiated-claims-and-spirituality-add-up-to-a-math-journal-retraction/.]
M. Sivasubramanian and S. Kalimuthu, A computer application in mathematics, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010), 296-297, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2009.07.048 and http://www.math.hkbu.edu.hk/~ttang/newspaper/funnyarticle11.pdf. [This paper supposedly proved the parallel postulate using computer magnification.]
These arent poor judgement calls or mathematical mistakes that were uncovered too late in seemingly valuable articles. Each one is a case in which I find it difficult to believe any competent referee could possibly have recommended acceptance, even for a journal with the lowest possible standards.
-------------
There is a guy, Rossi, out there right now, pushing Cold Fusion. He has a secret sauce, I think is a micro-themite powder.
FAKE
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/
Folks there have been over 450 peer reviews over the years on something called, polywater. Bad science is endless.
Peer review is the very beginning and even that doesn't work any more. Too much literature. Too much corralling of thought under Govt grants or not. Too much money at stake. The flim/flam never stops. We are flim/flam monkeys with money.
Science + Politics = Power. It doesn't have to be good science. And it does not have to be in good journals, that the "peer review" was published. You make a silly journal and you call it, Environmental Systems or something..as if. Your job is to publish agenda junk. Why? To get agenda junk ADVERTIZING.
So, in science, we go by repeatable experiments, only. There have been so many failures of peer review, it is not even funny.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job.
--------------
http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/80/
L. A. V. Carvalho, On some contradictory computations in multi-dimensional mathematics, Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005), 725-734, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2005.02.074. [See http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0603599 for severe criticism, but the paper has not been retracted.]
Rohollah Mosallahnezhad, Cooperative, compact algorithms for randomized algorithms, accepted by Applied Mathematics and Computation in 2007 and formatted/copy-edited but withdrawn after publicity, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011 and http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/sharif_paper.pdf. [In this unbelievable case, computer-generated nonsense was accepted for publication. See http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/blog/index.php?entry=entry070626-110103.]
M. Sivasubramanian, New parallel theory, Applied Mathematics Letters 23 (2010), 1137-1139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2010.05.003. [See http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/faked-data-unsubstantiated-claims-and-spirituality-add-up-to-a-math-journal-retraction/.]
M. Sivasubramanian and S. Kalimuthu, A computer application in mathematics, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010), 296-297, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2009.07.048 and http://www.math.hkbu.edu.hk/~ttang/newspaper/funnyarticle11.pdf. [This paper supposedly proved the parallel postulate using computer magnification.]
These arent poor judgement calls or mathematical mistakes that were uncovered too late in seemingly valuable articles. Each one is a case in which I find it difficult to believe any competent referee could possibly have recommended acceptance, even for a journal with the lowest possible standards.
-------------
There is a guy, Rossi, out there right now, pushing Cold Fusion. He has a secret sauce, I think is a micro-themite powder.
FAKEhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/
Folks there have been over 450 peer reviews over the years on something called, polywater. Bad science is endless.
canndo
Well-Known Member
You are correct, and the excess is sequestered into the ground as coal and oil. THat same coal and oil we are burning at a rate far faster than nature originaly put it into the ground.
canndo
Well-Known Member
If science was conducted solely by counting of peer reviewed articles, that seem to agree to a layman, we would be lost and have no science, at all.
Peer review is the very beginning and even that doesn't work any more. Too much literature. Too much corralling of thought under Govt grants or not. Too much money at stake. The flim/flam never stops. We are flim/flam monkeys with money.
Science + Politics = Power. It doesn't have to be good science. And it does not have to be in good journals, that the "peer review" was published. You make a silly journal and you call it, Environmental Systems or something..as if. Your job is to publish agenda junk. Why? To get agenda junk ADVERTIZING.
So, in science, we go by repeatable experiments, only. There have been so many failures of peer review, it is not even funny.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job.
--------------
http://publishing.mathforge.org/discussion/80/
L. A. V. Carvalho, On some contradictory computations in multi-dimensional mathematics, Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005), 725-734, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2005.02.074. [See http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0603599 for severe criticism, but the paper has not been retracted.]
“Rohollah Mosallahnezhad”, Cooperative, compact algorithms for randomized algorithms, accepted by Applied Mathematics and Computation in 2007 and formatted/copy-edited but withdrawn after publicity, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2007.03.011 and http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/sharif_paper.pdf. [In this unbelievable case, computer-generated nonsense was accepted for publication. See http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/blog/index.php?entry=entry070626-110103.]
M. Sivasubramanian, New parallel theory, Applied Mathematics Letters 23 (2010), 1137-1139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2010.05.003. [See http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/faked-data-unsubstantiated-claims-and-spirituality-add-up-to-a-math-journal-retraction/.]
M. Sivasubramanian and S. Kalimuthu, A computer application in mathematics, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010), 296-297, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2009.07.048 and http://www.math.hkbu.edu.hk/~ttang/newspaper/funnyarticle11.pdf. [This paper supposedly proved the parallel postulate using “computer magnification”.]
These aren’t poor judgement calls or mathematical mistakes that were uncovered too late in seemingly valuable articles. Each one is a case in which I find it difficult to believe any competent referee could possibly have recommended acceptance, even for a journal with the lowest possible standards.
-------------
There is a guy, Rossi, out there right now, pushing Cold Fusion. He has a secret sauce, I think is a micro-themite powder.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/07/23/defkalion-demonstrates-lenr-live-right-now/
Folks there have been over 450 peer reviews over the years on something called, polywater. Bad science is endless.
I agree with most of what you say, however, the bolded part is not all there is to science - observational science is also a part of the whole. What repeatable experiments can we do directly in the area of astronomy? we can observe, we can observe in very sophisticated ways but we do very little experimentation, and even less repeatable experimentation.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
So we are going to use it up and then no more fossil fuels. You greenies should be exctatic!!
canndo
Well-Known Member
Not me, I like energy. But you don't address the point. We are putting that c02 back into the atmosphere in a few hundred years what it took nature millions to take out.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so nature has intentionality?
that's an argument i usually only ever hear from the bigots who think two women rubbing each other's beautiful clitorides to glorious orgasm is akin to slapping mother nature in the face.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, OK. I cannot admit to that, any more than I can admit to not enjoying your analogy.
But, many believe that DNA has it's own intentions...ok...a few? Just me?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Who cares what a dissenter says? 3 out of 4 agreed! Don't pay any attention to the naysayers! Most importantly do not read their academic works!
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Even the UPCC has admitted that the underlying science of their hypothesis is crap...
IF that is crap the rest is crap and you have to start again from the beginning. Nobody is talking about doing that though. The left just says Oh well, puts a layer of icing over the crap and continues on like nothing happened.
Too many useful idiots on this planet.
Either willfully blind or sincerely ignorant.
To control carbon is to control all of humanity.
We are dirty breathers who will owe a tithe to the global planners because we breathe out a toxic gas needed for all life on earth.
Everything we touch and do involves carbon.
Either willfully blind or sincerely ignorant.
To control carbon is to control all of humanity.
We are dirty breathers who will owe a tithe to the global planners because we breathe out a toxic gas needed for all life on earth.
Everything we touch and do involves carbon.
El Tiberon
Active Member
The Federal Rules of Evidence state, "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." In order for someone to properly qualify as an expert witness, he must accurately and adequately answer a specific set of foundational questions to establish his specialty. Once qualified, he may offer testimony and opinions based on his specific training, knowledge and expertise.
Unfortunately, the US is stocked full of the misinformed and uneducated. The internet therefore, becomes the outlet for their inane ideology.