Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The fat is, fat. Hypotheses as yet unproven by experiment or observation. That you're no scientist is painfully obvious. Acting like sea ice extent has NEVER been this low is number one on the list of stupid suppositions. 

Let's look at some newspaper clippings shall we?

Now given that you're imitating a snivelling little internet troll in his mommy's basement I'll anticipate your next response, where you'll claim I'm quoting a bad source, to which I'll reply, "Too bad, so sad, get a life".

Cheers

Math is the only science with proofs.

 

[Guest]

LOL you're obsessed with Trump. Seriously. 

Whatever the thread is about, Trump will come up. 

Edited October 25, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Your scientists make similar mistakes in favor of their agenda. Their agenda is designed to stifle the development and economy of free lands in the far north. 

Really?

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The accusation that this guy has not performed any scientific research is unsubstantiated. 
If you have supporting evidence for the accusation, please supply it.

Not possible to show what does not exist, although Crockford tried to get a desk study published in 2017 - no actual "research" - but it was absolutely dreadful and you can read it at her blog.

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Let's look at some newspaper clippings shall we?

Is that what passes for science here?

 

[PE Scott + 563]

I'm not saying your wrong @remake it, and I'm not saying that Crockford is 100% correct either, but I think it's fair to say there is disinformation from both camps and possibly some shady or biased results both directions as well. Real science, without bias, is difficult to come by these days. Even more difficult when we're quoting emotionally charged opinion pieces on scientific journals. The biggest argument I see against crockford is that her polar bear research isnt published in the same scientific journals that many of the other scientists use, leading one to believe the reviews from her colleagues are an echo chamber and not a unbiased critique. However, I would challenge that there would probably be unfair bias favoring evidence of climate change if you approached things from a different direction. Ultimately, we're left to sort through the bullshit on our own. I do concede though that it's difficult to say who has ulterior motives or bias.

Still, wheather I agree with this person or not, I think it's out of line for the school to fire her. As an institution of higher learning I would have encouraged peer review of her research. If there were major concerns brought up with her methodology or data, then it could be published and refuted in a public, scientific manner. Firing her, in my opinion, only offers more fuel to the fire for those joining her side because it makes the opposing side look like they're unwilling to debate her position, instead just firing her to silence her. 

Lastly, polar bears and global warming don't correlate. Most of the research I've seen that refutes the decline of polar bear populations DOES NOT refute changes of habitat or ice levels. Instead, they point out this isnt the first time the ice has changed levels dramatically and that polar bears seem resilient to changes in their climate.  On the flipside, most studies that suggest polar bears are on the decline directly correlate that population loss to global warming and climate change. Doesn't make them wrong, it just seems like they're using the polar bears for greater leverage than maybe what's fair.

 

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

The biggest argument I see against crockford is that her polar bear research isnt published in the same scientific journals that many of the other scientists use, leading one to believe the reviews from her colleagues are an echo chamber and not a unbiased critique. However, I would challenge that there would probably be unfair bias favoring evidence of climate change if you approached things from a different direction. Ultimately, we're left to sort through the bullshit on our own. I do concede though that it's difficult to say who has ulterior motives or bias.

Crockford cannot publish her "desk studies" in scientific journals because they require that actual "research" be carried out, although she mentions Ian Stirling's work  in her blogs as he is a published expert who along with many others paint a coherent picture of the probable plight of polar bears that is not tainted with bullshit, as you call it.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Crockford cannot publish her "desk studies" in scientific journals because they require that actual "research" be carried out, although she mentions Ian Stirling's work  in her blogs as he is a published expert who along with many others paint a coherent picture of the probable plight of polar bears that is not tainted with bullshit, as you call it.

I know Dr Stirling personally - awesome guy.  Gave me an ancient muskox horn he collected in the arctic archipelago.

Him and his students have the best stories, scary helicopter flights, nearly dying from polar bears, etc. 

True tough men.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

The world is heating up. No one knows where it will go. There is great scientific evidence that the world has undergone about 50 of these. There was no use of fossil fuels whatsoever during the previous 49. Just as the caribou increased in # after the Alaskan pipeline went in, the antelope herd on the Wells Ranch in the northeast corner of Weld County (Colorado) increased in # with the oil activity. The polar bears? I imagine they’ll adapt. That poor guy with cancer that they keep showing on a tiny ice floe may not make it, and I feel sorry for him—we all get something, it seems. But I don’t believe I caused his problem, I don’t use aeresolized hair spray that cut a hole in the ozone. I agree with Ward on this one, buddy, some of this is sad as hell but try not to drape it on me and my homeboys. 

[remake it + 288]

35 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

The world is heating up. No one knows where it will go. There is great scientific evidence that the world has undergone about 50 of these. There was no use of fossil fuels whatsoever during the previous 49. Just as the caribou increased in # after the Alaskan pipeline went in, the antelope herd on the Wells Ranch in the northeast corner of Weld County (Colorado) increased in # with the oil activity. The polar bears? I imagine they’ll adapt. That poor guy with cancer that they keep showing on a tiny ice floe may not make it, and I feel sorry for him—we all get something, it seems. But I don’t believe I caused his problem, I don’t use aeresolized hair spray that cut a hole in the ozone. I agree with Ward on this one, buddy, some of this is sad as hell but try not to drape it on me and my homeboys. 

You do know that what you posted is incoherent gibberish don't you, or do you actually think you are onto something?

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

You do know that what you posted is incoherent gibberish don't you, or do you actually think you are onto something?

No, I don't think I'm onto something at all, but I do know that what you've been posting under the guise of science is pure, unadulterated horse shit. Come back when you've grown up enough to have sampled life. I doubt there's a person on this site who doesn't like animals, but to pin all this on fossil fuels, when they've saved so many lives (think electricity to run ventilators, power operating rooms, make pharmaceuticals) is irresponsible in the extreme. I love polar bears, but they're not my first love. I was a cardiologist for 37 years and I saw your like on a daily basis, a poseur trying to save the world but never did a damn thing to save anything . . . just wrote on places like this, and before the Internet, probably on a bathroom wall. So, big guy, you think you're going to intimidate me? Think again. I personally don't care what you post, for you are smaller than a bacterium to me, but I don't care for your acting self-righteous while you're doing it. Get a life! Do something. Come back and tell us what you did, actually, and that you have some whiskers about life, and then perhaps we'll take you seriously. 

[Guest]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

8 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

just wrote on places like this, and before the Internet, probably on a bathroom wall. So, big guy, you think you're going to intimidate me?

8 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I do know that what you've been posting under the guise of science is pure, unadulterated horse shit.

8 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

I personally don't care what you post, for you are smaller than a bacterium to me, but I don't care for your acting self-righteous while you're doing it.

ABSOLUTE GOLD GERRY, RESPECT  x

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

No, I don't think I'm onto something at all, but I do know that what you've been posting under the guise of science is pure, unadulterated horse shit. Come back when you've grown up enough to have sampled life. I doubt there's a person on this site who doesn't like animals, but to pin all this on fossil fuels, when they've saved so many lives (think electricity to run ventilators, power operating rooms, make pharmaceuticals) is irresponsible in the extreme. I love polar bears, but they're not my first love. I was a cardiologist for 37 years and I saw your like on a daily basis, a poseur trying to save the world but never did a damn thing to save anything . . . just wrote on places like this, and before the Internet, probably on a bathroom wall. So, big guy, you think you're going to intimidate me? Think again. I personally don't care what you post, for you are smaller than a bacterium to me, but I don't care for your acting self-righteous while you're doing it. Get a life! Do something. Come back and tell us what you did, actually, and that you have some whiskers about life, and then perhaps we'll take you seriously. 

Again, pure unadulterated gibberish - and full of the usual ad hominems from so many here that want to put "science" into a sentence without actually using it to support their views.

[Guest]

''UNADULTERATED HORSE SHIT''

tell it like it is

Edited October 25, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

ONLY

CORRECT

IF

IT

FITS

THE

POPULAR

NARRATIVE

 

 

 

Time for that reboot

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I seriously doubt he wrote on the bathroom wall. If he didn’t have a keyboard, and it actually took some effort, he likely wouldn’t write at all!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, DayTrader said:

''UNADULTERATED HORSE SHIT''

tell it like it is

 

5 hours ago, DayTrader said:

ONLY

CORRECT

IF

IT

FITS

THE

POPULAR

NARRATIVE

Seems to me the popular narrative is mostly adulterated horse shit. 

i.e. shit made to fit.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 hours ago, remake it said:

Crockford cannot publish her "desk studies" in scientific journals because they require that actual "research" be carried out, although she mentions Ian Stirling's work  in her blogs as he is a published expert who along with many others paint a coherent picture of the probable plight of polar bears that is not tainted with bullshit, as you call it.

Take a look at ALL the scientific journals out there. 100% of them routinely publish "Surveys" and "Compendiums" and "Overviews", which are nothing more than rehashed papers that are collated and annotated. My research gets quoted all the time in these and I get to see my name pop up weekly in Academia.Edu because It's been referenced. It means not much, and those collections are useful to other researchers even though they never plow new ground. That must be what you refer to as "desk studies" and it's perfectly valid and sails right thru peer review. 

You've demonstrated for the hundredth time that you're no scientist and know nothing about science. Why not give it up buckwheat? 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

My research gets quoted all the time in these and I get to see my name

Subtle ... love it. 

I thought @Otis11 was good at name dropping ...

But I do like 'buckwheat' as a dig.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Guest

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Note: Just because it is published, does not mean it isn’t horseshit!

The ‘publish or perish’ mentality prevalent in academia ensures that horseshit gets published.

[PE Scott + 563]

12 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Take a look at ALL the scientific journals out there. 100% of them routinely publish "Surveys" and "Compendiums" and "Overviews", which are nothing more than rehashed papers that are collated and annotated.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Someone does some research or an experiment. Ideally, that person publishes all their data, their methods, and of course their results and conclusions. Then, because its science, someone else comes along and analyzes all that data, repeats that methodology, and demonstrates the same results....assuming the science is sound. If all of that checks out, then other people will just quote that data and research for their own purposes and analysis. 

Now, if someone takes the data and comes up with a conclusion contrary to what other believe, then that has to be addressed scientifically. Usually this is done with some sort of experiment or different method to eliminate whatever factors have lead to the uncertainty. What isnt typical is to eliminate the opposing point of view. Well, not in the 21st century anyway. Which is the whole point here. 

[remake it + 288]

40 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

You've demonstrated for the hundredth time that you're no scientist and know nothing about science. Why not give it up buckwheat? 

Perhaps you missed the bit about the very simple fact that this person claims to be an expert on polar bears and has never carried out actual scientific research, while those who have and are published do not share her opinions.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@PE ScottYou should be burned at the stake, heretic!😂

Edited October 26, 2019 by Douglas Buckland
Too slow!

[remake it + 288]

16 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

Now, if someone takes the data and comes up with a conclusion contrary to what other believe, then that has to be addressed scientifically.

Given that Crockford only relies on the research of others relating to polar bears the only way she can come to a different conclusion is if she can show their methodology is wrong or they have miscalculated, so where has she brought to account those who have published their scientific research findings? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Note: Just because it is published, does not mean it isn’t horseshit!

The ‘publish or perish’ mentality prevalent in academia ensures that horseshit gets published.

I'll gently reiterate ... shit made to fit.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 hours ago, remake it said:

Given that Crockford only relies on the research of others relating to polar bears the only way she can come to a different conclusion is if she can show their methodology is wrong or they have miscalculated, so where has she brought to account those who have published their scientific research findings? 

Or she can point to the census numbers they themselves produced and compare them to their own prior predictions and underscore the embarrassing dissimilitude to reality. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

17 hours ago, DayTrader said:

ONLY

CORRECT

IF

IT

FITS

THE

POPULAR

NARRATIVE

 

 

 

Time for that reboot

and the "popular narrative" around here is wrong.

#AlternativeFacts