Tropical storm jumps gun, churns off South Carolina - Alberto is churning off the US coastline, the first storm in a hurricane season that doesn't begin officially until June 1.

anutensil · 2012-05-21T07:00:35.237070+00:00

I don't have any problem with hope - it is not like I am rooting for that to happen - what I am trying to suggest is that deniers and skeptics have confined all talk on this subject to the "absolutely certain aspect" (on which level I did already make the temperature half of that prediction) - and as a result really rare, non-linear and extreme scenarios have been dismissed out of the public talk claiming all those are "alarmist". So yes, it is now possible that NOAA is not alarmist enough and can be wrong, it is also (more) likely that I could be wrong - but that is the entire point of a prediction - you test a hypothesis :) That is also why deniers rarely make any predictions - since their crap-science is worth nothing.

anutensil · 2012-05-20T22:03:06.544004+00:00

I am on record predicting that this season might not be so benign and that the next full El Nino year will break all existing temperature (and also probably arctic ice) records:

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/pm8hb/empty_rhetoric_is_cheap_predictions_are_hard_so/

darohitster · 2012-05-20T21:57:00.691416+00:00

And that is a surprise how? Maybe only among the local deniers!

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 1 day

I learned to not give a shit on what anonymous people on the internet (and especially reddit) believe - I provided a link to the peer-reviewed paper (and there are 3-4 other and a meta-analysis showing the same thing) - if you have any point to make please link to a peer-reviewed analysis - as I said your opinion is worth exactly shit!

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 1 day

... we would expect "natural" or "herbal" medicines to sometimes have an effect that could be equal to, or better, than standard treatments.

Speak for yourself - actual scientists (and all doctor friends) would expect the 8th best-sold drug in the world to be a lot better than naturist stuff or placebo.

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 2 days

Sorry, my mistake, naturist medicine, not homeopathic :)

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 2 days

My mistake - that is indeed kind of thin for a peer-review study, but I fail to see how that is the fault of the blogger (unless he is the author :) ).

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 2 days

This was not a 'study', this was a blog post, and for a blog post the numbers are pretty impressive - feel free to provide and publish better numbers if you have the time to read and analyze 10000 papers in each field. In the meantime the actual peer-reviewed studies and papers (of which the blog also links to a few) continue to show that there are some very suspicious results (see also my other link somewhere in this thread on naturist medication vs. Zoloft).

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 2 days

Apparently some people believe statistics is only valid when you have billions of samples, and when you can discard all the other information on the subject (like for instance the degree of subjectivity in measurements in say physics at LHC and on a drug-trial done in a hundred of patients or so).

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 2 days

I believe you might be confusing things a little - I expect Materials Science to have a very, very high score since the field of research is very, very clearly measurable and it is close to 100% a field with direct practical competitive impact - so stuff that is not very promising is immediately abandoned (before starting a serious study on it) in favor of some other material that is. However a field where a half-homeopathic remedy performs the same or better than a drug which is in the top10 best-seller drugs in the world (Zoloft) should raise some skeptical questions about the degree of scrutiny in that (very imprecise) field.

IGNORANCE_SUCKS · 2 days

All the story is in the numbers, and for people with any experience in statistics even such apparently very small differences are quite telling.

mdjubasak · 4 days

Energy is conserved ...

I believe that (as far as I understand the Lambda-CDM model), not even energy is actually conserved at 'cosmologic scales'.

tekprodfx16 · 6 days

So you still have nothing but your same old ignorant lies?

tekprodfx16 · 6 days

That's the million dollar question. We can state rather confidently that it isn't simply TSI.

Based on what peer-reviewed paper? Or you are again pushing your regurgitated crap of cosmic rays on which even Svensmark no longer makes any claim related to climate (after being so completely debunked during the last 10 years)?!

Daemonax · 7 days

Statistics is definitely +++ :)

However - unless you are not a major expert in quite a number of scientific fields - the most important point of skepticism is - again and again - being able to find and understand the written peer-reviewed papers on the relevant subject - in other words the opinion of the experts in that field!

Guillam · 15 days

You are posting only stories that are a mater of opinion and not science or evidence - so it is increasingly obvious that you are a shill of the AGW-denial movement - whether you are competent enough to be paid is something that only your superiors can decide :)

ascaso · 15 days

What has that imbecile reference from a source with zero credibility has to do with this post?

nuclear_is_good

TROPHY CASE

nuclear_is_good

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login