08-08-2019, 12:00 PM
(08-07-2019, 08:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, continuing to repeat your question isn't going to change what I've actually said.
I understand. You "challenged people to post good science" and you're not exempt from your own challenge. Lead by example. Don't ask anyone to do something you yourself aren't willing to do. Show me the science. Not editorials from the media you don't trust.
Quote:I've laid out the issues and assumptions that are problematic. The challenge has always been to prove otherwise.
Again, I haven't asked you to prove anything and I'm not trying to prove anything. Just post the journal articles and let the research speak for itself. Linking an article doesn't prove or disprove man's role in climate change. That's not part of the scientific method. You're not going to prove or disprove anything by showing me an article you read because you aren't doing any research, collecting data, making observations, or drawing a conclusion based upon your experimentation. You're just linking a website to an article. That's it.
You don't even have a hypothesis. You have opinions. Yet, you inexplicably claim others don't understand science.
Quote:So that leaves you two choices - get to work on google and prove me wrong,
I want to read the science you read. That doesn't mean I want to prove you wrong. It means I want to read the science. As I have told you before, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this topic because of the issues you already brought up with the media, the fact this is such a politically polarizing topic that basically splits upon party lines among laymen with no real expertise in the subject, the the amount of disinformation actively being spread, and my general lack of interest in the physical sciences.
Quote:or stop pretending that you actually understand the science and move on to another topic.
I've never claimed to understand this topic. Matter of fact, I have repeatedly told you my mind is open on this topic. It is quite possible I may not understand the actual science related to this topic because my background is mostly in biology, chemistry, and medicine. So while I readily admit I'm no expert in climate change, I do have a background in and understand science and how science works. Just not this field of science. So I'm not going to waste my time Googling through the massive amount of disinformation on the internet when I have a source such as yourself to point me in the right direction. Because my time would be better spent reading a NEJM article which I can use towards my annual CME requirements than reading an editorial about climate change from some random dude who works as a lawyer. You and I will never know if I will understand the science if you continue to refuse to show me the science.
Quote:I think you're fully aware that non-findings aren't typically published. And I'm sure you can understand there isn't research invalidating a non-public model that was never validated. That's not how science works, and I think you know this.
That's just not true. That's exactly how Andrew Wakefield's research linking a specific MMR vaccine to autism was discredited. By publishing studies of "non-findings" which refuted the link. Basically, the studies proved a negative; there is no link.
Quote:I've said many, many times the "science" behind climate hysteria is junk. Data mining is not science, and I'm not going to go find you a journal article that. Maybe don't mock people when you don't appear to understand even the basics of the science yourself.
Mock you? Show me where. I've made the conscious decision not to mock you despite the fact you mocked me in the same sentence you accused me of mocking you in the hope you would rise to your own challenge and . . . just show me the science.
