(12-30-2013 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think some of this "peer reviewed" crap is dangerous. Are people so dumb these days they can't discern between valid information and invalid? By requiring things be "peer reviewed" you actually lower the amount it intellectual involvement and subject the whole system to a level of special interest and politics. That's a dangerous path to go down, shutting people up because they aren't part of the subscribed to club.

Peer review is a filter, not a guarantee.

Even acting as a filter the aggregate effect is to lessen input into the intellectual arena. That's a bad thing. The people who mater are, or should be, capable of differentiating between fact and crap.

The people who matter are the ones who don't want to sift through unregulated publications.

So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting

l miles south of Hobart, Australia. (AP)

The leader of a scientific expedition whose ship remains stranded in Antarctic ice says the team, which set out to prove climate change, is "stuck in our own experiment."

But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.

“We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

- Professor Chris Turney, leader of trapped expedition

"We're stuck in our own experiment," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We ... are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.

"Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement.



“Cute how these Warmists who hate fossil fuels take a trip to the Antarctic to show just how horrible fossil-fueled climate change is, then need rescue from their fossil-fueled trip by other fossil-fueled ships and helicopters, which still can’t rescue them,” wrote one blogger on Pirate’s Cove.

The website Newsbusters said much of the media has bent over backward to avoid linking the ship’s current fate with its mission.

“Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice,” read a post on the site. “If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity.”


http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/3...s-melting/

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:28 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think some of this "peer reviewed" crap is dangerous. Are people so dumb these days they can't discern between valid information and invalid? By requiring things be "peer reviewed" you actually lower the amount it intellectual involvement and subject the whole system to a level of special interest and politics. That's a dangerous path to go down, shutting people up because they aren't part of the subscribed to club.

Peer review is a filter, not a guarantee.

Even acting as a filter the aggregate effect is to lessen input into the intellectual arena. That's a bad thing. The people who mater are, or should be, capable of differentiating between fact and crap.

The people who matter are the ones who don't want to sift through unregulated publications.

So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:30 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Peer review is a filter, not a guarantee.

Even acting as a filter the aggregate effect is to lessen input into the intellectual arena. That's a bad thing. The people who mater are, or should be, capable of differentiating between fact and crap.

The people who matter are the ones who don't want to sift through unregulated publications.

So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Even acting as a filter the aggregate effect is to lessen input into the intellectual arena. That's a bad thing. The people who mater are, or should be, capable of differentiating between fact and crap.

The people who matter are the ones who don't want to sift through unregulated publications.

So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. Most skeptic content comes in the form of blog posts, so you can't really argue that they should make an exception for it.

You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The people who matter are the ones who don't want to sift through unregulated publications.

So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Oh, I'm well aware of the rules.

The thing is reddit as a larger organization has a mission and a purpose as well.

The actions of that subreddit are contrary to them.

Everything I'm saying in terms of excluding debate etc is done primarily in the general sense. By doing what r/science has it should just be lumped in with r/circlejerk

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:37 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The people who matter are the ones who don't want to sift through unregulated publications.

So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. Most skeptic content comes in the form of blog posts, so you can't really argue that they should make an exception for it.

You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Sounds like a haven for left wing propaganda with militant assaults for dissension.

(12-30-2013 04:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. Most skeptic content comes in the form of blog posts, so you can't really argue that they should make an exception for it.

You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Sounds like a haven for left wing propaganda with militant assaults for dissension.

Obviously you don't go to reddit. They have conservative, republican, Christian, and Libertarian subreddits.

(12-30-2013 04:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So folks who aren't on Reddit? I'd agree.

What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Oh, I'm well aware of the rules.

The thing is reddit as a larger organization has a mission and a purpose as well.

The actions of that subreddit are contrary to them.

Everything I'm saying in terms of excluding debate etc is done primarily in the general sense. By doing what r/science has it should just be lumped in with r/circlejerk

All admit, I'm not comfortable with a flat out ban of AGW skeptic material myself. I'm just trying to explain their point of view.

(12-30-2013 04:17 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. Most skeptic content comes in the form of blog posts, so you can't really argue that they should make an exception for it.

You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Sounds like a haven for left wing propaganda with militant assaults for dissension.

Obviously you don't go to reddit. They have conservative, republican, Christian, and Libertarian subreddits.

(12-30-2013 04:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:52 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  What?

The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Oh, I'm well aware of the rules.

The thing is reddit as a larger organization has a mission and a purpose as well.

The actions of that subreddit are contrary to them.

Everything I'm saying in terms of excluding debate etc is done primarily in the general sense. By doing what r/science has it should just be lumped in with r/circlejerk

All admit, I'm not comfortable with a flat out ban of AGW skeptic material myself. I'm just trying to explain their point of view.

Oh okay.

Well, in that way I'm with you in that folks will just start a new r/.

Still, its sad to think that a website founded on the idea of debate and exchange of ideas would allow its subreddits to wall themselves off like that.

Reddit has moves that way though in general because its just nutjobs in a lot of them, especially the old r/atheism. They've all become different takes on r/circlejerk. LOL

(12-30-2013 04:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:17 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. Most skeptic content comes in the form of blog posts, so you can't really argue that they should make an exception for it.

You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Sounds like a haven for left wing propaganda with militant assaults for dissension.

Obviously you don't go to reddit. They have conservative, republican, Christian, and Libertarian subreddits.

(12-30-2013 04:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 04:01 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-30-2013 03:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The folks who are doing research aren't probably using Reddit as a place to dig up information. It's silly and incredibly arrogant of r/science to think they are an important enough source of information for scientists to break with the greater point of the website, free speech and debate.

Besides, isn't the mod a self proclaimed PhD of Chemsitry? That puts him outside of the club he'd like to think he is a part of, the club that can tell others to shut up.

You know how reddit works, right? People post links and upvote what they like or don't like. Different subreddits have different rules based on what their readership wants. r/science readers don't want to read non-peer reviewed science, so they don't allow it. You're more than free to start a science subreddit with looser standards (I'm guessing one already exists).

Oh, I'm well aware of the rules.

The thing is reddit as a larger organization has a mission and a purpose as well.

The actions of that subreddit are contrary to them.

Everything I'm saying in terms of excluding debate etc is done primarily in the general sense. By doing what r/science has it should just be lumped in with r/circlejerk

All admit, I'm not comfortable with a flat out ban of AGW skeptic material myself. I'm just trying to explain their point of view.

Oh okay.

Well, in that way I'm with you in that folks will just start a new r/.

Still, its sad to think that a website founded on the idea of debate and exchange of ideas would allow its subreddits to wall themselves off like that.

Reddit has moves that way though in general because its just nutjobs in a lot of them, especially the old r/atheism. They've all become different takes on r/circlejerk. LOL

Very true. r/atheism is nothing but a circlejerk of hate IMO. There are far better discussions between atheists and Christians on r/Christianity.

This thread really departed from what the OP was about. I was about to post on this before I saw a thread already posted on it. One of our posters wanted to deflect away from this story on to a topic already discussed to death on here, though.

Major Irony. Summed up nicely in one tweet.

BBC/Guardian global warming research/propaganda cruise trapped by record breaking irony

Funny, but that summer ice wasn't there when Sir Robert Mawson made his second expedition in the summer of 1929 - 30. This supposed "research expedition" for activists, media and propagandists is stuck in ice said to be 3 - 4 meters thick. Pretty funny that they are trying to spin the fact that they are trapped in ice while proclaiming that climate change is causing sea ice to disappear.

This link is really worth reading. Already posted by Dr.T.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/sa...y-sea-ice/

From a statement released by the expedition group.....

Quote:Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.

blah, blah, blah, obfuscate, spin, deflect to hide the irony of their situation in a media created propaganda event. It really is a sight to behold.

http://www.news.com.au/national/aurora-a...6791671102

I'm sure our resident pseudo-scientist will be along soon to set me straight on things and tell me why I only believe what I want to believe.

Funny how our media report on this group being stuck in the ice and miss the much bigger story and the humor in the irony that the ice they say is disappearing has them trapped. You can't make this **** up.

(12-31-2013 07:04 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  This thread really departed from what the OP was about. I was about to post on this before I saw a thread already posted on it. One of our posters wanted to deflect away from this story on to a topic already discussed to death on here, though.

Major Irony. Summed up nicely in one tweet.

BBC/Guardian global warming research/propaganda cruise trapped by record breaking irony

Funny, but that summer ice wasn't there when Sir Robert Mawson made his second expedition in the summer of 1929 - 30. This supposed "research expedition" for activists, media and propagandists is stuck in ice said to be 3 - 4 meters thick. Pretty funny that they are trying to spin the fact that they are trapped in ice while proclaiming that climate change is causing sea ice to disappear.

This link is really worth reading. Already posted by Dr.T.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/sa...y-sea-ice/

From a statement released by the expedition group.....

Quote:Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.

blah, blah, blah, obfuscate, spin, deflect to hide the irony of their situation in a media created propaganda event. It really is a sight to behold.

http://www.news.com.au/national/aurora-a...6791671102

I'm sure our resident pseudo-scientist will be along soon to set me straight on things and tell me why I only believe what I want to believe.

Funny how our media report on this group being stuck in the ice and miss the much bigger story and the humor in the irony that the ice they say is disappearing has them trapped. You can't make this **** up.

I don't see the irony. Global warming isn't the sudden death of ice and cold. The average temperature has only changed by one and a half degrees Fahrenheit since the 1800s.

Of course you don't. No surprise there.

Ice 3 - 4 meters thick is not abnormal weather.

(12-31-2013 07:17 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Of course you don't. No surprise there.

Apparently you (and several other posters) can't understand why cold weather isn't a gaping hole in global warming. It's really hard to explain trends to people who lack the imagination to understand them.



I mean look, there are years that are colder and years that are warmer. If average temperature changes by a fraction of a degree, colder years don't suddenly disappear.

(12-31-2013 07:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 07:17 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Of course you don't. No surprise there.

Apparently you (and several other posters) can't understand why cold weather isn't a gaping hole in global warming. It's really hard to explain trends to people who lack the imagination to understand them.

So that's what we need, imagination?

(12-31-2013 07:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 07:19 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-31-2013 07:17 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Of course you don't. No surprise there.

Apparently you (and several other posters) can't understand why cold weather isn't a gaping hole in global warming. It's really hard to explain trends to people who lack the imagination to understand them.

So that's what we need, imagination?

Imagination, the ability to visualize, whatever.

Yep, lets just look at the time line that fits our story, 110 years, call it "long term average" <snicker> and "trend" <snicker>, and ignore the real long term of EARTH.

Can't tell if this is Hansen making predictions, or just claiming anecdotes as support for his "science".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capi..._blog.html