Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Surprisingly, given the level of integrity you typically manifest... your definition is almost ok... just not quite right in this context...


peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted








futurecurrents said:
Peer reviewed means SOME peers working for the publication looked at it before publication and found it met the minimum standards to be published, then after it's published the climate science as a whole starts looking at it. Only after some time since publication can it be said to have been reviewed by the bulk of the science community.

Determining the ice mass flux on Antarctica is very difficult. Future satellite missions may contradict this one.
More...
 
Too funny, everyone talks about peer reviewed, but no one here is a peer.

You know, if you guys spent even 1/10 of the amount of time here actually doing the research instead of posting about other people's research, you can come to your own conclusions. Here is mounds of climate data:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/

You guys are like the fanatics in most sports. You can talk a great game, but if you got out in the playing field you wouldn't even know where to start.
 
did you get hammered in the market today or something.
that was a ridiculous rant. it makes no sense.

the point of peer review or other imprimaturs is to give it a stamp of approval for those in other disciplines from those within the discipline.

as far as sports or even trading is concerned... how the heck would you know?

Is it so wrong to ask you nutters to produce some peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming?

don't you see how govt can abuse the situation?







nitro said:
Too funny, everyone talks about peer reviewed, but no one here is a peer.

You know, if you guys spent even 1/10 of the amount of time here actually doing the research instead of posting about other people's research, you can come to your own conclusions. Here is mounds of climate data:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/

You guys are like the fanatics in most sports. You can talk a great game, but if you got out in the playing field you wouldn't even know where to start.
More...
 
in fact if you wish to talk about wannabes...

I have seen a lot of science wannabes on the the nutter side... but on this board the real scientists all seem to be on the skeptical side and they also seem to be the people who actually contribute some real thoughts.

When challenged with legitimate questions they tackle the question with structured responses.... it takes a long time before the let their emotions get out.

they don't dodge the issue and then a few months later pull a hillary.
if they don't know something or science does not have the answer they don't have emotional blocks... they say... we don't know.
 
Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says

"(CNN)Antarctica is gaining more ice than it has lost, according to a new study by NASA.

A NASA team came to this conclusion after scientists examined the heights of the region's ice sheet measured from satellites.

The new methods used by scientists to come to this study's conclusion, such as measuring small height changes in the ice over large areas, warrant consideration. But the findings do conflict with more than a decade of research indicating that Antarctica is losing ice and that the loss has contributed to rising global sea levels...."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world..._homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork
 
if you had followed the discussion here on et... between ricter and a few of us who demand science... you would know that there were studies and conclusions which were conflict with each other. The nutters were saying one thing and others were saying not so fast. You are making conclusions from a very limited sample.

In short it was a decade of conflicting research.


nitro said:
Antarctica is gaining ice, NASA study says

"(CNN)Antarctica is gaining more ice than it has lost, according to a new study by NASA.

A NASA team came to this conclusion after scientists examined the heights of the region's ice sheet measured from satellites.

The new methods used by scientists to come to this study's conclusion, such as measuring small height changes in the ice over large areas, warrant consideration. But the findings do conflict with more than a decade of research indicating that Antarctica is losing ice and that the loss has contributed to rising global sea levels...."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/world..._homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iref=obnetwork
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
if you had followed the discussion here on et... between ricter and a few of us who demand science... you would know that there were studies and conclusions that were conflict with each other. The nutters were saying one thing and others were saying not so fast. You are making conclusions from a very limited sample.

In short it was a decade of conflicting research.
More...
Read the article
 
I did previously and I did again...no change..
The article was giving us the CNN slant.
Somehow they found a way to say even if the study is true and there is currently no net loss of ice, the ice may still melt so rapidly we will have a 3 meter rise.
typically leftist crap in response to contrary science.

Yeah and we may get nuclear fusion and the Mets may win the World Series.
And if and butts were...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
I did previously and I did again...no change..
The article was giving us the CNN slant.
Somehow they found a way to say even if the study is true and there is currently no net loss of ice, the ice may still melt so rapidly we will have a 3 meter rise.
typically leftist crap in response to contrary science.

Yeah and we may get nuclear fusion and the Mets may win the World Series.
And if and butts were...
More...

Hey... The Carolina Panthers are 7-0. Magic does happen. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top