| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| New Solar Science Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 13 2016, 12:47 PM (277 Views) | |
| Pat | Aug 14 2016, 01:24 AM Post #11 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to the report, it was scientists doing the research. What is considered a competent scientist? I label that moving the goal posts Brew. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Aug 14 2016, 02:16 AM Post #12 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was a scientist doing the research, and it was a reasonable paper. But it was never backed up by any other scientist in the field after being out there for about a decade - a pretty good indication that she was wrong. But it's not her paper that's the real problem, it's the Whacko interpretation applied to it by GWPF. Pat, why the trouble understanding what a "competent scientist" is? It's someone trained in a field, preferably to the PhD level, and who has worked in that field for a significant time. In this case, dealing with a paper about the Sun, that would be an astronomer. And not a single astronomer anywhere has backed up her paper. But regardless of whether her paper is correct or not about the Sun's fluctuations, it indicates nothing about Climate Change - it can't. She's not a competent expert in the field of Climate Science - no training, no experience. And that's where GWPF comes in - they've taken an "iffy" paper with little scientific confirmation, stressed her purely amateur opinion on how it will affect the Earth's temperature, and broadcast it to the world, with not a single competent climate scientist's verification. And they expect their Gullible audience to accept this over-hyped, unscientific mishmash as reason to doubt 120 years of climate research. In any case, No goalposts moved. My insistence that all papers be written or at least reviewed (Preferably both) by a competent expert in his/her field, then Peer Reviewed if it falls outside commonly accepted theories, has been exactly the same since I joined this board. Let's review this document. Her original document needed to be: written by a competent expert in his/her field; True preferably reviewed by another competent expert in his/her field; False Peer Reviewed if it falls outside commonly accepted theories; False This piece passed only the first of those grounds. GWPF's later interpretation of her paper fails on ALL of those grounds. Totally False Edited by Brewster, Aug 14 2016, 02:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Aug 14 2016, 04:07 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What in the world are you talking about Brewster? This is a new paper. You need to get out of history and get caught up with what is happening today. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Aug 14 2016, 06:03 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bullship. I first debunked it before this Forum even existed. On Edit: Pardon me, not quite true... I apologize. I just checked - this Forum was created in 2008, and the study was first published in 2010.. I didn't start posting here regularly until 2011, hence the confusion. Zharkova may have issued updates since then, making it seem like a whole new discovery, but it's the same ol' speculative nonsense in shiny new clothes. Edited by Brewster, Aug 14 2016, 06:15 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Aug 14 2016, 06:06 AM Post #15 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I wonder if we get to see the "proof" of that statement.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Aug 14 2016, 06:24 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Proof? I checked again, and yes she's dressed it up, added some bits, but here's the original Article:
Edited by Brewster, Aug 14 2016, 06:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Aug 14 2016, 06:45 AM Post #17 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So you lied again. Thanks for admitting it. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Aug 14 2016, 07:02 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
i made a mistake. I always admit my mistakes. Now when will you start admitting either your mistakes Or your lies, Neut? Either would be an improvement. |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Aug 14 2016, 07:15 AM Post #19 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I checked again, and yes she's dressed it up, added some bits, but here's the original Article: |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Aug 14 2016, 07:28 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You made the same "mistake" three times in this thread. That is not a mistake, that is lack of knowledge and the inability to look at both sides of the argument. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






I wonder if we get to see the "proof" of that statement.

9:02 AM Jul 11
