Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by xsnaggle
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
To be fir he probably didn't understand the question.
To cheer you up Matt it was the hottest day on record in Wales today at 37.1 in Hawarden. The record might tumble again tomorrow.
You're clearly not aware how the system works. You act like these "experts" work for free in the name of truth seeking. These studies cost a lot of money to fund. So the truth belongs to those funding the study.
I'm going to fund a study to see if humans can be born through the rectum. I would like to use you as a case study.
This is the third time I've asked the question in the thread to Lither. I'll ask again as you've brought it up again but not given this important information.
Who is funding all the peer reviewed climate research?
Maybe later we can ask "what do you think peer reviewed means", as I'm not convinced you're on the right track there either. But first, the funding?
FIFY
Good fix.
In the States when climate alarmist Al Gore was vice president the cornerstone of Gore’s strategy was to ensure that all high-ranking government officials who had any involvement with funding policies relating to climate change were in line with his vision. These agencies included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
You don’t even know what peer reviewed means mate.
The funding of peer reviewed studies is peer reviewed to ensure the neutrality of the reports, followed by separate independent reviews of everything produced for it. Everything is fully referenced and can be traced so it can all be taken to first principals and be reviewed by anyone else.
If you were really interested you could pick up a study and fully check yourself that it was as neutral as possible.
It’s all completely separate for industry produced studies and much more independent.
The fact you just said this shows you have no real grasp of how science and analysis works.
No one of note is producing unpeer reviewed documents because it doesn’t make any sense for a scientific perspective.
That's great, so we've covered the USA in the 1990s. Do you think the Trump White House was also doing the same? If not, that's four years when the peer reviewed research was racking up. Fancy another swing at it?
As rudy says above, I'm not sure you grasp what peer reviewed means.
"It's not 99% of scientists but 99% of those funded to do peer reviewed papers. "
Nobody is funded to do a peer reviewed paper. Research is funded, and then if it is to be published in a respected journal, it is peer reviewed.
Your argument is like saying "sure, Usain Bolt has the fastest 100m times, but that's because you're only including the times in official meets with electronic timing. How about all the races done by one person visually with a hand stopwatch?"
I'm sure peer reviews are not perfect, but we're talking about thousands of studies all around the world where they have almost all come to the same conclusion. It's as indisputable as you can get, it'd be impossible to fraudulently get all those studies on this scale without any evidence of the fraud coming out.
I've noticed most of the people moaning about it on the news were pretty fat, probably that has something to do with the overreaction, as people are getting fatter they can't get their temperature down so easily, is that why hot temperatures have become more of any issue, this will only be for two days?
size-ist!! Reported.
Has there been an over-reaction?
How's the bet going?
I see what you mean they can't run fast enough to dodge the sun. Makes sense I've never seen Usain Bolt sunburnt.
is there an overreaction?
all they've said if that people should take precautions, which is fair enough isn't it, seeing as people will die from this heat?
The minimum overnight temperature (25.9) in Emley Moor in Yorkshire was two degrees above anything recorded in this country before - that’s hardly “normal” is it? Apparently, there were three other places, including one in Wales, that beat the old record.
Please strive for at least some semblance of accuracy and detail:
The UK provisionally had its hottest minimum temperature on record last night, with Kenley in Surrey never falling below 25.8C, the Met Office says.
This represents an increase of nearly 2C on the previous highest minimum daily temperature of 23.9C.
The Welsh record has also been broken, with Aberporth never falling below 24.5C last night.
We previously reported a high of 25.9C in Yorkshire as a provisional figure, but are currently waiting for confirmation of that.
Not to good 39.1 in Surrey.
You don't know how averages work?
Also, it's going to be catastrophic for someone. I guarantee it.
Clearly in this thread there any many who no matter the amount of hard evidence their lead infested brains which have had 30+ years of a daily mail diet will never ever change their minds on this.
Why is it if you ask for someone's views on climate change if they don't believe it you know instantly that they're tory voting brexiters. Again there's a huge link between education and all of these factors.
Go ahead and cry that I'm being patronising, snowflakes.
You aren't patronising, you just sound like a complete arse. And for once, I agree with you on the wider topic, but it's ironic that you ask people to follow the science (correctly) and then make a series of insulting, tiresome and inaccurate tropes that completely undo your argument.
Posting Permissions
