Do you believe in climate change?

@QuixoticSoul what are you talking about?

@QuixoticSoul Citing a study is putting my head in the sand? What is relying on 40 year old text books sticking your head up your butt?

@hippyjoe1955 You haven't actually cited anything you silly man. That requires a citation.

@FreestyleArt Hippie being hippie, and his hilarious relationship with science.

@QuixoticSoul https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf If you can read it.

@QuixoticSoul If you get through the first one then here is another. Happy reading. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

@hippyjoe1955 Oh wow you actually cited something 😂

In some sense, the arxiv.org link should tell you that you're jumping the gun. That's a pre-publication manuscript, meaning non-peer reviewed, and not accepted by any journal. It doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong, but it's a good reason to treat is as speculative. This is tough for you grasping-at-straws types, but science is a conservative enterprise.

There are also some issues that immediately jump out at me that will likely mean that this will [i]never[/i] pass peer review or get published. There are only six references, four of them the author's own, two never published. They don't provide the dataset that they ostensibly rely on for their conclusions (this is a big one). There is obvious circularity (climate models cannot be relied on, but here is ours). There are blatantly unsupported conclusions that ignore established observational evidence (ex: oceans and CO2). Etc, etc.

Kudos on you for actually linking something, but this is far from the smoking gun you want to pretend it is.

@QuixoticSoul Ooooooo and peer review is so important..... So how do those big red floppy shoes fit? A bit tight perhaps?

@hippyjoe1955 Yes, peer review is very important, it keeps thing at a certain level of rigor and professionalism - the authors have some lengths to go to before this is up to an acceptable standard.

Then, of course, the other experts in the field will absolutely demolish it, they're already licking their chops. But it won't get that far. The sloppiness of this whole thing makes me think the authors never intended to take it all the way. Perhaps conspiracy blogs and rubes like you were the real target audience all along 😂

@QuixoticSoul Only in your mind is it important. It is a joke that you haven't figured out yet. Did you ever think that every discarded theory that has ever been held in modern science has at some point or other been 'peer reviewed'. Peer review means absolutely nothing and only fools believe it does.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote] Did you ever think that every discarded theory that has ever been held in modern science has at some point or other been 'peer reviewed'.[/quote]
Yes, of course. And there is a [i]vastly[/i] larger body of absolute nonsense out there that's never been peer reviewed or could pass peer review. Like this paper, or random hippie musings on crystal power.

Peer review is not some kind of guarantee of truth. You're absolutely deluded on what the point of the entire exercise even is. Peer review generates works up to a certain level of rigor and professionalism - works that people can then begin to actually discuss in a meaningful fashion. Right/Wrong isn't even the point of peer review - "I don't agree with your conclusions" is not a reason to keep a manuscript out of the journal. But "you haven't provided the data you rely on to make your conclusions" is.

Theories that have been accepted and superseded didn't just pass peer review, they went a long way further - you seem to think that just because something was superseded means it was bad science, which is nothing of the sort. Accepted theories often move their whole field forward, generating a body of research that eventually results in them being superceded. This is how everything is [i]supposed[/i] to work - nobody thinks we should take away Neil Bohr's Nobel simply because his model has been supplanted. It was a remarkable achievement that pushed us forward.

Your basic flaw that's always apparent, is that on some fundamental level, you just don't seem to understand how science works, or what the point of the entire enterprise even is.

@QuixoticSoul The point is that peer review means nothing as to the validity of an observation. Three drunken buddies see a UFO. Peer reviewed observation.

@hippyjoe1955 Ironically, including something like that in a paper would likely never pass peer review, because the subjects were intoxicated and eyewitness testimony is known as the weakest form of evidence.

Seriously, you're completely out in the woods here. Peer review isn't even an arbiter of right or wrong. It just keeps random napkin nonsense out of serious journals.

For example - in this case, we can't even really discuss the validity of the observations, because the dataset from which these observations stem has not been provided. This is the sort of stuff that peer review is there to sift out.

@QuixoticSoul Ha ha ha shows how many 'peer reviewed' papers you have read. Sometimes I wonder why anyone would offer their name as a reviewer of some of the trash published. Then I read an article about some guy who sold his name as a peer reviewer for money. He never read the papers or even agreed with their methodology or conclusions. He simply agreed to let his name be used.

@hippyjoe1955 Yes, yes, *yawn*

For all that generic anti-intellectual nonsense, you can see the difference in rigor and general technical competence that it takes to get into a serious academic journal right in the other article you cited. Because guess what, peer review keeps the standards up.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45466-8

Of course, you want to make something completely different out of their conclusions and randomly connect them to the napkin scribblings out of Finland for bold apocalyptic results (cosmic rays control everything!!!!), but that's another matter 😂

@QuixoticSoul You think your beliefs have any intellectual vigor? Seriously? They are a bad joke at best!!! No one with a bit of curiosity would believe that crap. Too Funny!!!!!

@hippyjoe1955 What beliefs are those? We don't usually talk about what I believe in these things. You probably don't know.

@QuixoticSoul Wow you are that intellectually challenged? Let me guess you are just a bag of chemicals for no reason.

@hippyjoe1955 We have not discussed any of my beliefs in this particular conversation. We generally don't. Most of our interactions involve me dismantling your pathetic attempts at reasoning and finding new ways to call you an idiot. We rarely need to discuss anything [i]I[/i] personally believe.

@QuixoticSoul You have made your beliefs front and centre on all these discussions.

@hippyjoe1955 Nope 🤷‍♂️

Seriously, they're always centered around how retarded you're being in any particular moment. Which is usually at some previously unheard of epic level.