Climate-gate

That sounds reasonable. If that is truly the case, that most of the habitat hadn't even been visited, then it was a bit ridiculous to declare the species extinct.
 
milkweed said:
I linked to the original paper via the royal society link.
You will have to look at Watts up which has the link to the Times Story.
The Times story requires you to sign up for $1 euro.
You wont read the rebuttal because the Royal Society refused to publish it, but the Royal society admitted to the Times reporter that the same anonymous reviewers that had approved the paper also rejected the rebuttal. SEVEN years ago; shortly after the royal society published the paper.

Peer review failed (again).

95% probability. Where have I heard that before?
Click to expand...

Peer review failed again. You realize how stupid that comment is? Probably not.
 
zgmc said:
If the times is the only place to find the rebuttal, than you're right, I won't be paying to read it. as for designating a species extinct, it is not realistic, or even possible, to be 100% certain. Does not mean that the peer review has failed.
Click to expand...

He thinks the peer review scientific method fails a lot. Like frequently. That's what he wants to think and it has nothing to do with reality. Pretty much crank nonsense based on ignorance of the method and how it's done. Without reading the rest of his nonsense he probably thinks he just indicted science for it's failures.
 
iceaura said:
From following the public debate on the effects of human boosting of CO2 levels for the past decade or so. You can find the same stuff on any number of websites and the like - including Tim Ball's own web contributions, if you think a minute while you are reading them.

Look, there are only a few places you can find an author like that recommended. And you should have learned by now to treat anything recommended or promoted by such places with vigilance - fact checking, background research, etc.
Click to expand...

On the back of Dr.Tim Ball's book and I quote

" Dr. Tim Ball holds a Ph.D ( Doctor of Science ) in Climatology from Queen Mary College , University of London "

Your so called fact checking is inadequate , obviously

And nobody recommended his book , I just happen to come across it in the library
 
sculptor said:
nothing turns me off faster than an ad hominem attack
Click to expand...
You do not know what an ad hominem "attack" is.

Disparagement is not a synonym - not even inaccurate disparagement, let alone the reasoned and accurate labeling of deception, fraud, and bullshit visibly emerging from the efforts of our Tim Ball here.

sculptor said:
On the back of Dr.Tim Ball's book and I quote

" Dr. Tim Ball holds a Ph.D ( Doctor of Science ) in Climatology from Queen Mary College , University of London "
Click to expand...
I don't care whether he has a doctorate in something or not, and made no claims otherwise. I read his published essays, on his website endorsed by him, and recalled from past years encounters with his bs where he has been getting his funding and with whom he chooses to be associated intellectually - corporations like Exxon, fellows like Willie Soon.

If you do your background research on authors by reading their book jackets, it's no wonder you sucker for the likes of Tim Ball. Did you read his essays on his website? They are ludicrous.

If that is truly the case, that most of the habitat hadn't even been visited, then it was a bit ridiculous to declare the species extinct.
Click to expand...
Not as ridiculous as the use of such circumstances here. Somebody prematurely declares a species extinct, possibly (it is alleged, without evidence) blames climate change, it is found extant - and so climate change is not a threat to species?
 
brucep said:
He thinks the peer review scientific method fails a lot. Like frequently. That's what he wants to think and it has nothing to do with reality. Pretty much crank nonsense based on ignorance of the method and how it's done. Without reading the rest of his nonsense he probably thinks he just indicted science for it's failures.
Click to expand...

--It was not until the late 20th century that external refereeing came to be seen as an essential feature of a respectable scientific journal. While historians are still trying to work out the reasons for this change, the new emphasis on peer review (a term that itself originated after the Second World War) seems to have been partly a response to the increased public scrutiny that came with massive Cold War financial investments in science. --

http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/

THE RELIGION OF PEER REVIEW

--- Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."

Indeed, an abundance of data from a range of journals suggests peer review does little to improve papers. In one 1998 experiment designed to test what peer review uncovers, researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research paper. More than 200 reviewers identified an average of only two errors. That same year, a paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine showed that reviewers couldn't spot two-thirds of the major errors in a fake manuscript. In July 2005, an article in JAMA showed that among recent clinical research articles published in major journals, 16% of the reports showing an intervention was effective were contradicted by later findings, suggesting reviewers may have missed major flaws. ---

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23672/title/Is-Peer-Review-Broken-/

-- The most startling was revealed last October when the work of Bell Laboratories' Jan Hendrick Schon came under scrutiny. Schon published 25 papers over the past 3 years. Of those, 16 have been declared to be false. This finding caused the prestigious journal Science to withdraw eight of his papers. --

http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr03/peek.shtml

Plenty more out there.
 
iceaura said:
You do not know what an ad hominem "attack" is. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, actually. (and I see an amazing/disgusting amount of that tactic on certain forums)

and

In your zeal, you attributed something river had posted to me.

Are we blending together in your mind?
or
Is that a cut and paste error?

................
milkweed: bravo
 
iceaura said:
Not as ridiculous as the use of such circumstances here. Somebody prematurely declares a species extinct, possibly (it is alleged, without evidence) blames climate change, it is found extant - and so climate change is not a threat to species?
Click to expand...

I agree. A scientist makes a mistake, and certain media outlets jump at the chance to discredit science in general.
 
Originally Posted by iceaura View Post


Not as ridiculous as the use of such circumstances here. Somebody prematurely declares a species extinct, possibly (it is alleged, without evidence) blames climate change, it is found extant - and so climate change is not a threat to species?
Click to expand...



zgmc said:
I agree. A scientist makes a mistake, and certain media outlets jump at the chance to discredit science in general.
Click to expand...

what the problem is this , its not the climate change isn't happening , it is , its just that the CO2 levels are not the single cause of this climate change, its much more complicated than a single component
 
river said:
On the back of Dr.Tim Ball's book and I quote

" Dr. Tim Ball holds a Ph.D ( Doctor of Science ) in Climatology from Queen Mary College , University of London "

Your so called fact checking is inadequate , obviously

And nobody recommended his book , I just happen to come across it in the library
Click to expand...

From the wiki,

Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[27] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[28] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[29] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[30]
Click to expand...
 
river said:
what the problem is this , its not the climate change isn't happening , it is , its just that the CO2 levels are not the single cause of this climate change, its much more complicated than a single component
Click to expand...

Right, its not just the level of CO2, its the rate of increase that is troubling.
 
zgmc said:
From the wiki,
Click to expand...

perhaps not

but his book is 2014

eight ( 8 ) yrs later

one learns a lot in eight yrs

and really enough of this

just go to the library and read the book for yourself

we seem to nowadays to take someone else's opinion and review of a person and/or book as the guidelines as to be what should be read , we google rather than reading the book

for myself I'm old school , read the book for my self , be fully informed of what this person is trying to get across , not tidbits of information
 
The guy has a track record of being deliberately misleading. How can you be sure that this book isn't more of the same?
 
I think we already went over a couple of points. Here are some more:

http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Looks like hes employed by the Heartland Institute

http://heartland.org/timothy-ball

Wiki on Heartland:

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[12][13][14] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[15] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[16] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.[17]
Click to expand...
 
Timothy Ball has no credibility with me. This article disputing the thinning of the ozone layer is enough for me to know that he either has a screw loose, or is simply completely committed to selling his opinions to the highest bidder. What next, defending tobacco or leaded gasoline? If he isn't a hired gun, then he's a conspiracy theory crank (I wonder what his Sciforums handle is?) which is even worse.
 
Repo Man said:
Timothy Ball has no credibility with me. This article disputing the thinning of the ozone layer is enough for me to know that he either has a screw loose, or is simply completely committed to selling his opinions to the highest bidder. What next, defending tobacco or leaded gasoline? If he isn't a hired gun, then he's a conspiracy theory crank (I wonder what his Sciforums handle is?) which is even worse.
Click to expand...

what specifically are you referring to , here ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top