Do you belive in human caused global warming?

[Dododecapod]

So far he's only claimed the first. Though it seems you're really trying to prove the second one true.

You aren't part of our conversation, so get out of it.

Noo, my friend, it's clear you've never worked in academia! (And may I never have to again!) The credibility of a journal is given by the academic community as a whole, and a more back-biting, vicious group of over-educated thugs you will never find. They will go WAY out of their way to tear down a competing hypothesis, and their battlefield is the scientific journal. If a journal gets a reputation as ANYTHING other than a STRICTLY NEUTRAL battleground for competing ideas, it will be dropped like a hot coal and never considered again. One of the BIG journals, like Nature, can survive a bad situation with only moderate loss of income; the small ones vanish without a trace.
And note I did NOT say that taking a side would increase sales. I said publishing an anti-warming paper that ACTUALLY WORKED would. Major difference.

This is all assuming that the battlefield in question has a healthy number of competing forces, which global warming does not have. there are not a large number of scientists that will say "man-made global warming is not occuring". Which brings me to my next point. The scientists like publicity of themselves, and their ideas. The scientific community are not the only ones buying scientific journals. More often then not, it's the gneral populace wondering what the hell global warming is. The journals have a larger audience with them, and include a bias that will garner them more sales. The scientists see nothing wrong with it, because they're reporting their opinion, which they believe to be correct, as do the very large majority of others, as the global warming battleground is not even, as previously stated. Thus the bias goes unchallenged, and the general populace preaches it as dogma.

I think you overestimate the sales of these journals to laymen. It happens, but frankly, it's rare; especially in the more specialized journals, but also in the general ones, a lot of the writing assumes a standard of knowledge the layman just doesn't have. For most people, a lot of the published work is both unintelligible and dry as sand.
Anyway, you have the bias exactly wrong. There's no bonus in being orthodox; it's the same-old same-old, the varnished tale so often overtold. There's really no market for yet MORE documentation of global warming.
But for an heterodox view, ah! That;s something different! New! Edgy! A paper opposing global warming, that made it through peer-review and had the full data to back it up? SNAPPED UP LIKE A HOTCAKE. It could make a journal's name, or confirm a larger one's sales for aother year.
There is NO reason not to publish such a paper other than...no such paper existing. THAT is the problem.

[Farnhamia]

I think it´s good too save the envroiment but global warming is NOT Humanmade
just look at Pastafarians tables
that´s just ike the co2 and global warming
a wrong conclusion

What?

[Malikov]

You aren't part of our conversation, so get out of it.

This is all assuming that the battlefield in question has a healthy number of competing forces, which global warming does not have. there are not a large number of scientists that will say "man-made global warming is not occuring". Which brings me to my next point. The scientists like publicity of themselves, and their ideas. The scientific community are not the only ones buying scientific journals. More often then not, it's the gneral populace wondering what the hell global warming is. The journals have a larger audience with them, and include a bias that will garner them more sales. The scientists see nothing wrong with it, because they're reporting their opinion, which they believe to be correct, as do the very large majority of others, as the global warming battleground is not even, as previously stated. Thus the bias goes unchallenged, and the general populace preaches it as dogma.

I think you overestimate the sales of these journals to laymen. It happens, but frankly, it's rare; especially in the more specialized journals, but also in the general ones, a lot of the writing assumes a standard of knowledge the layman just doesn't have. For most people, a lot of the published work is both unintelligible and dry as sand.
Anyway, you have the bias exactly wrong. There's no bonus in being orthodox; it's the same-old same-old, the varnished tale so often overtold. There's really no market for yet MORE documentation of global warming.
But for an heterodox view, ah! That;s something different! New! Edgy! A paper opposing global warming, that made it through peer-review and had the full data to back it up? SNAPPED UP LIKE A HOTCAKE. It could make a journal's name, or confirm a larger one's sales for aother year.
There is NO reason not to publish such a paper other than...no such paper existing. THAT is the problem.

Your argument is a good one, and so I concede the point. The topic now turns to why a paper like that has not been published, as there is evidence at hand for anyone who wished to. I know, as I have such sources in my possession.

[Malikov]

I think it´s good too save the envroiment but global warming is NOT Humanmade
just look at Pastafarians tables
that´s just ike the co2 and global warming
a wrong conclusion

What?

Protecting the environment is a good thing, when there are lesser negative effects.
Global warming is not man-made.
Rising Co2 levels, and temperature, is a coincidence.

[Farnhamia]

I think you overestimate the sales of these journals to laymen. It happens, but frankly, it's rare; especially in the more specialized journals, but also in the general ones, a lot of the writing assumes a standard of knowledge the layman just doesn't have. For most people, a lot of the published work is both unintelligible and dry as sand.
Anyway, you have the bias exactly wrong. There's no bonus in being orthodox; it's the same-old same-old, the varnished tale so often overtold. There's really no market for yet MORE documentation of global warming.
But for an heterodox view, ah! That;s something different! New! Edgy! A paper opposing global warming, that made it through peer-review and had the full data to back it up? SNAPPED UP LIKE A HOTCAKE. It could make a journal's name, or confirm a larger one's sales for aother year.
There is NO reason not to publish such a paper other than...no such paper existing. THAT is the problem.

Your argument is a good one, and so I concede the point. The topic now turns to why a paper like that has not been published, as there is evidence at hand for anyone who wished to. I know, as I have such sources in my possession.

Which journal will you be submitting your paper to, if that's the case? I'd make an effort to get a copy. Or you could go to the NY Times or the Washington Post or some other paper of high repute, and let them vet your data.

[Lauchlin]

Your argument is a good one, and so I concede the point. The topic now turns to why a paper like that has not been published, as there is evidence at hand for anyone who wished to. I know, as I have such sources in my possession.

Well, when you get home, we'll take a look at your sources. Papers like that have not been published because nobody can find data to support those conclusions. If your "retired scientists" have the data to support it, they'd be publishing it to supplement their incomes. If no journal is willing to publish it, it's almost certainly because their methods are flawed or that their data don't support the conclusions. But I guess we'll see.

[Dododecapod]

Your argument is a good one, and so I concede the point. The topic now turns to why a paper like that has not been published, as there is evidence at hand for anyone who wished to. I know, as I have such sources in my possession.

Which journal will you be submitting your paper to, if that's the case? I'd make an effort to get a copy. Or you could go to the NY Times or the Washington Post or some other paper of high repute, and let them vet your data.

A journal would be better - even high-quality newspapers get a lot of the science wrong, but a full, peer-reviewed, journal, that's what makes people take notice.

I for one would be very interested in your data, if you wouldn't mind posting it (or links to it).

[Jehnova]

Obviously man made blankets, and last time I checked, blankets are a global item, duh

[Malikov]

Aha ha ha! Your jibes are so witty and well-thought. It is not my data, merely sources I have come across that refutes the man-made global warming phenomenon. They have already been published, otherwise they wouldn't be legitimate sources now, would they?

[Farnhamia]

Aha ha ha! Your jibes are so witty and well-thought. It is not my data, merely sources I have come across that refutes the man-made global warming phenomenon. They have already been published, otherwise they wouldn't be legitimate sources now, would they?

Then perhaps you should gather them together and publish a compendium of the evidence. That would be worthwhile, don't you think?

[Xeraphim]

Your argument is a good one, and so I concede the point. The topic now turns to why a paper like that has not been published, as there is evidence at hand for anyone who wished to. I know, as I have such sources in my possession.

Well, when you get home, we'll take a look at your sources. Papers like that have not been published because nobody can find data to support those conclusions. If your "retired scientists" have the data to support it, they'd be publishing it to supplement their incomes. If no journal is willing to publish it, it's almost certainly because their methods are flawed or that their data don't support the conclusions. But I guess we'll see.

Oh right, because many of these journals don't have an agenda like the media and might just refuse to print stuff that contradicts their system of indoctrination.
No, that would never happen.

[Lauchlin]

Oh right, because many of these journals don't have an agenda like the media and might just refuse to print stuff that contradicts their system of indoctrination.
No, that would never happen.

They have an agenda to sell copies. What sells copies is good science. They are not obligated to tell the other side of the story, if there is no data supporting the other side.

[Tubbsalot]

Aha ha ha! Your jibes are so witty and well-thought. It is not my data, merely sources I have come across that refutes the man-made global warming phenomenon. They have already been published, otherwise they wouldn't be legitimate sources now, would they?

Are you planning on actually telling us what these sources are any time soon?

edit: consider me chastised! I even read that before, and then just forgot about it. =/

[Dododecapod]

Well, when you get home, we'll take a look at your sources. Papers like that have not been published because nobody can find data to support those conclusions. If your "retired scientists" have the data to support it, they'd be publishing it to supplement their incomes. If no journal is willing to publish it, it's almost certainly because their methods are flawed or that their data don't support the conclusions. But I guess we'll see.

Oh right, because many of these journals don't have an agenda like the media and might just refuse to print stuff that contradicts their system of indoctrination.
No, that would never happen.

Of course they have an agenda. They want to sell more journals. Orthodox won't do that anywhere near as well as heterodox will.

[Malikov]

I'll post sources once i get home, in about four hours. I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but I don't have my paper listing them on me at the moment, and i don't keep a digital copy of the sites. That's something I should think about doing, isn't it? But before you start clamoring for my blood, screaming "NO SOURCES", rest assured, I will post them.

Did no one take notice of that?

[Dododecapod]

I'll post sources once i get home, in about four hours. I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but I don't have my paper listing them on me at the moment, and i don't keep a digital copy of the sites. That's something I should think about doing, isn't it? But before you start clamoring for my blood, screaming "NO SOURCES", rest assured, I will post them.

Did no one take notice of that?

Cool. I look forward to it.
Meantime, bed calls. 'night everybody.

[DaWoad]

I think you overestimate the sales of these journals to laymen. It happens, but frankly, it's rare; especially in the more specialized journals, but also in the general ones, a lot of the writing assumes a standard of knowledge the layman just doesn't have. For most people, a lot of the published work is both unintelligible and dry as sand.
Anyway, you have the bias exactly wrong. There's no bonus in being orthodox; it's the same-old same-old, the varnished tale so often overtold. There's really no market for yet MORE documentation of global warming.
But for an heterodox view, ah! That;s something different! New! Edgy! A paper opposing global warming, that made it through peer-review and had the full data to back it up? SNAPPED UP LIKE A HOTCAKE. It could make a journal's name, or confirm a larger one's sales for aother year.
There is NO reason not to publish such a paper other than...no such paper existing. THAT is the problem.

Your argument is a good one, and so I concede the point. The topic now turns to why a paper like that has not been published, as there is evidence at hand for anyone who wished to. I know, as I have such sources in my possession.

Because the evidence against human-caused global warming is too weak to pass peer review, frankly. In fact, there really isn't any.

[Jakaragua]

The earth has been getting warmer, but we are speeding it up way too much it's going to affect us.

Also, global warming is just a part of climate change, scientists don't even like using the term global warming because in places it's going to go a lot colder, wetter, etc.

[Xeraphim]

Oh right, because many of these journals don't have an agenda like the media and might just refuse to print stuff that contradicts their system of indoctrination.
No, that would never happen.

They have an agenda to sell copies. What sells copies is good science. They are not obligated to tell the other side of the story, if there is no data supporting the other side.

You are quite trusting to think just because they put it in there automatically makes it "good" science.
Very trusting.

[Tubbsalot]

You are quite trusting to think just because they put it in there automatically makes it "good" science.
Very trusting.

About as trusting as if he trusted a food company to not make him ill from their food. What a naive simpleton! Hah!

[Malikov]

You are quite trusting to think just because they put it in there automatically makes it "good" science.
Very trusting.

About as trusting as if he trusted a food company to not make him ill from their food. What a naive simpleton! Hah!

The food company can get shut down for selling bad food. The science journal can't get shut down for bad science. The results of either can shut down both, but the publishing of bad science, in and of itself, cannot shutdown a science journal.

[Howestonia]

Finally,an intelligent like-minded person who thinks about what the government tells them and doesn't obey like a zombie!I'm not an anarchist, 60s, down with the government socialist, I'm a civil servant for gods sake, I work for the British government, but I've witnessed incidences like this before, and the government are very good at having a 'hidden agenda' and in this case I believe that the hidden agenda is money...Think about it, don't be bias towards one point or another, but think, if the government could tax us on CO2, (like they already do with businesses) then imagine the amount of money they'd make!
On the subject of hidden agendas, a prime example would be the war in Iraq, do you really think that we were fighting for 'freedom', or was it the convenient fact that most of the world's comes from Iraq...

[Tubbsalot]

The food company can get shut down for selling bad food. The science journal can't get shut down for bad science. The results of either can shut down both, but the publishing of bad science, in and of itself, cannot shutdown a science journal.

So what you're saying is that bad food and bad science are both fatal for their respective producers. Very astute of you.

but think, if the government could tax us on CO2, (like they already do with businesses) then imagine the amount of money they'd make!

Since that would literally be a Breathing Tax, I have no doubt that it would make loads of cash in the few seconds before riots began.

[Malikov]

The food company can get shut down for selling bad food. The science journal can't get shut down for bad science. The results of either can shut down both, but the publishing of bad science, in and of itself, cannot shutdown a science journal.

So what you're saying is that bad food and bad science are both fatal for their respective producers. Very astute of you.
*snip*

Assuming of course, that a batch of bad food, and a single article of bad science have the same effect on their respective producers, which they don't. Two journals, possibly, but the entire credebility of the journal would have to be destroyed, which would force it into an open, public oriented market position. A journal would have to be so obviously flawed that even your average Texas-redneck knows it's bull, before it would go under. The food company sends out one bad batch, gets nailed for not handling the food properly, is slaped with law suits, declares bankrupcty, and goes under. Very different results.

[DaWoad]

About as trusting as if he trusted a food company to not make him ill from their food. What a naive simpleton! Hah!

The food company can get shut down for selling bad food. The science journal can't get shut down for bad science. The results of either can shut down both, but the publishing of bad science, in and of itself, cannot shutdown a science journal.

of course it can, oh not officially but publishing bad science makes a journal look bad. If that happens to many times no-one will buy the journal and it will shut down.