Origin :) the numbers

@kellyjay said
So insulting without anything of substance, typical.

How are those observations "insulting"? I haven't called you a "gutless puke" or a "nasty liar" or a "slithering coward" or anything like that.

@fmf said
How are those observations "insulting"? I haven't called you a "gutless puke" or a "nasty liar" or a "slithering coward" or anything like that.

Touche, when the discussion goes personal the topic is not being discussed. I could go back and read more things you have said, but I think it isn’t necessary.

@kellyjay said
[youtube] W1_KEVaCyaA [/youtube]

Can you provide links to the peer review publications that support the claims made in this 'documentary'..please.

@stellspalfie said
Can you provide links to the peer review publications that support the claims made in this 'documentary'..please.

You can search for them if you want to.

@kellyjay said
You can search for them if you want to.

have you read them?

@stellspalfie said
have you read them?

There something wrong with the argument you want to highlight, or just highlight peer view papers on a video were or were not written? I would care about the first not so much the latter.

@kellyjay said
There something wrong with the argument you want to highlight, or just highlight peer view papers on a video were or were not written? I would care about the first not so much the latter.

Well that's your big issue. You should care more about the latter. Its the actual science that counts not how persuasive the argument is.


So, have you checked to see if the science behind the claims made in the video is solid? Or do you just accept it.

@kellyjay said
There something wrong with the argument you want to highlight, or just highlight peer view papers on a video were or were not written? I would care about the first not so much the latter.

Got another quick question for you - What is it about ice core and tree ring data that makes you think its an unreliable source for climate change modelling?

@stellspalfie said
Well that's your big issue. You should care more about the latter. Its the actual science that counts not how persuasive the argument is.


So, have you checked to see if the science behind the claims made in the video is solid? Or do you just accept it.

Do you automatically accept peer review papers?

@kellyjay said
Do you automatically accept peer review papers?

No, that would be silly. It certainly goes a long way towards making me take the idea or claim seriously though.


How do you discern which youtube videos are pseudoscience and which are real science?

@stellspalfie said
No, that would be silly. It certainly goes a long way towards making me take the idea or claim seriously though.


How do you discern which youtube videos are pseudoscience and which are real science?

Great question, if neither can be totally trusted don’t you think argument not where it is and isn’t shown should stand on its own?

@kellyjay said
Great question, if neither can be totally trusted don’t you think argument not where it is and isn’t shown should stand on its own?

Which would you choose to diagnose your illness a Doctor or a Hollywood actor who plays a Doctor? Neither can be 100% trusted but one should be taken a lot more seriously than the other.

So although a peer reviewed theory may draw incorrect conclusions it should be take seriously and despite being incorrect conclusions, will still contain useful data and science.

The youtube clip that provides no evidence or explanation of data science should not be trusted unless research and evidence to substantiate the claims can be found.


You never answered my question about trees and ice.

@stellspalfie said
Which would you choose to diagnose your illness a Doctor or a Hollywood actor who plays a Doctor? Neither can be 100% trusted but one should be taken a lot more seriously than the other.

So although a peer reviewed theory may draw incorrect conclusions it should be take seriously and despite being incorrect conclusions, will still contain useful data and science.

...[text shortened]... ce to substantiate the claims can be found.


You never answered my question about trees and ice.

It’s not a good comparison since the letters behind the names involved are all impressive on both sides of the discussion. You can look at the reasoning being deployed, validate the variables, and check out the methodology. You find something off highlight it.

I’ve done that with things presented here, again if the arguments are sound that is the bottom line!

How many posts have we made and you have not touched what was presented, you have only questioned the source?

I am sorry about your question about trees and ice will respond when I get home.

@kellyjay said
Touche, when the discussion goes personal the topic is not being discussed. I could go back and read more things you have said, but I think it isn’t necessary.

"Touche"?

@fmf said
"Touche"?

You are right I was wrong.