You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]escapetomars0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
peer-reviewed studies on the topic at hand
Peer review is not very valuable in a field of study were your "peers" can't be trusted to be honest or objective.
This has been an issue for decades now and the science hasn't been proven false yet.
This statement completely contradicts the facts. In fact, when global warming models are looked at, the inverse is true - in decades, no single model has been proven true yet. Further, the scientific evidence is very clear, the predictions of the global warming alarmists has no basis in scientific fact.
On your first point, I guess if you don't trust the scientific community at large then you wouldn't trust peer-review anyway. Nothing I can do to sway you on that opinion.
For the second point, a lot of models have been updated as more accurate data comes along and the vast majority of those models have been updated towards more warming and more sea level rise. It is not going to be pretty in the next few hundred years unless we get our act together now.
if you don't trust the scientific community at large
Nope, I just realize that scientists are humans, and therefore have bias for various human reasons. In the climate "science" community, there is a big problem when scientists are getting paid by government organizations looking to push a specific agenda - that is, catastrophic climate change. As a result, the science they produce is unreliable at best.
a lot of models have been updated as more accurate data
They keep getting updates, but despite all the updates they keep being wrong, 100% of the time. You can do all the updates you want, but if your models never accurately predict climate, they are junk and should be trashed. The fact that they haven't been just exposes the bias and dishonesty in the climate "science" community.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] escapetomars ago (edited ago)
Peer review is not very valuable in a field of study were your "peers" can't be trusted to be honest or objective.
This statement completely contradicts the facts. In fact, when global warming models are looked at, the inverse is true - in decades, no single model has been proven true yet. Further, the scientific evidence is very clear, the predictions of the global warming alarmists has no basis in scientific fact.
[–] Level_Cannon ago
On your first point, I guess if you don't trust the scientific community at large then you wouldn't trust peer-review anyway. Nothing I can do to sway you on that opinion.
For the second point, a lot of models have been updated as more accurate data comes along and the vast majority of those models have been updated towards more warming and more sea level rise. It is not going to be pretty in the next few hundred years unless we get our act together now.
[–] escapetomars ago
Nope, I just realize that scientists are humans, and therefore have bias for various human reasons. In the climate "science" community, there is a big problem when scientists are getting paid by government organizations looking to push a specific agenda - that is, catastrophic climate change. As a result, the science they produce is unreliable at best.
They keep getting updates, but despite all the updates they keep being wrong, 100% of the time. You can do all the updates you want, but if your models never accurately predict climate, they are junk and should be trashed. The fact that they haven't been just exposes the bias and dishonesty in the climate "science" community.